Actually, what we need is healthcare. Health insurance is not anything we need. Artificially paying money for an unhelpful and anti-health profit driven bureaucracy isn't healthcare. It's legalized graft. Making money off the sick? That is just.... sick.

People aren't cars, we don't need no stinking insurance, we just need health care. For all.

I've been on board with the cost argument for single payer from the beginning. We wouldn't even be having the discussion were it not for the inflated costs of US healthcare. The insurer's propensity to deny coverage, and exclude those at risk from their own particular insurance pools is only icing on the cake for justifying radical change to our healthcare 'system'. Economists have known since the early nineties, that if our all ready highest in the world healthcare costs continue to increase at the highest rate in the world, our national competitiveness in the world market is at risk. The argument for universal healthcare is partly ancillary to the debate, although the argument is that by pooling all the members of society, high as well as low risk together, universal coverage can be accomplished at little or no extra cost. The bottom line is that we're f@#ked if we fail to rein in our healthcare costs, and a single payer system provides the easiest and most effective way to address market anomalies in costs.

The problem is also the uninsured for both humanitarian and practical reasons.

You can make the argument on costs if you like but I also believe that there can be no future for progressives (see Bill Mahar's piece from last night on You Tube) if we can't argue that we live in the 21st century. All first world countries save us and most others above subsistence level take universal healthcare as a given for a civilized 21st century nation. I don't know why any Democrat needs to apologize for arguing that.

I'm fed up with being a nation in decline.

Rec'ing this one too, Natcha Boy.

BUT...I think the debate can get back on track. I'm working on a letter now basically imploring the President to take the same personal ownership stake in this debate that he did in the stimulus debate.

All of the posters on this thread make good points, I believe. But the only way a strong public option is going to happen is if Obama starts throwing around some of those ethereal "political capital" chips he's been stacking.

Mr. President, you do NOT leave important legislation like this in the hands of Congress. That is the one sure way to end up with health care UNreformed. Screw the fear of a "unitary executive", Mr. President, and take over this effort NOW.

The Blue Dogs and New Dems will come along - but not for Pelosi, Clyburn, Waxman or Markey. Not for Reid, Kennedy or Dodd. Only for you, Mr. President, will they get off their fences. Give 'em a push.

"How do we get the uninsured covered. This was an error."

That has been one component. I don't see the facts as judging it as an error, but clearly if the focus was strictly that it would have been too narrow. But single-payer hasn't focused on the uninsured that I've seen. They focus on the excess admin/finance costs of the current system.

"The problem isn't the uninsured. The problem is that the insured are paying too much and getting too little in return. "

The uninsured are also paying a lot. But I've read that something 90% of Americans are happy enough with their coverage (2005?), so I have to wonder who you're talking about, outliers?

As others have noted as well, the health reform business has several facets:

need for care
access to care
payment for care
cost containment (rationing scarce resource)
routine care vs. catastrophe care

and, transition costs

Any discussion which ignores any of those is "in error".

> How do we get the uninsured covered.

Who cares?

> The problem is that the insured are paying too much and getting too little in return. We should be offering public healthcare that's cheaper and more generous than what insurance companies provide.

False. That would just make the wealthy pay for the poor to have insurance coverage, denying the wealthy of their life and property.

> Here's how I see it: If we get health reform that gave insurance to every uninsured American but leaves the rest of us with exactly the same coverage we have now, we'll have failed.

You're exactly right, but for the wrong reason. If we get health reform that gives insurance to every uninsured American, we have failed.

> It looks as if healthcare reform will leave the majority of us right where we started.

Aww, no freebies for you!

> Everybody in America needs a better deal, not just those who have been left out.

No, everyone *wants* a better deal. I don't need a better deal, I'm doing just fine.

> Glad you're doing fine. I don't want a better deal, I want a fair deal.

If you don't think the deal is fair, then don't buy it. Just wait until enough people come around to your wrong way of thinking.

> . Markets aren't just about sellers. Buyers count too. That's why we need a public healthcare option... so we can create a big ole buyer.

There's nothing "free" about the government forcibly removing money from my wallet to pay for someone elses healthcare. This is equivalent to denying my right to property, and my life.

To call this a health care debate is a misnomer.

The condition that has existed for years is one of health care cost increases that have exceeded the rate of inflation handily. With inflation at 3% or 4% but health care increases ranging from 9% to 12% for more than a decade citizens have been continuously raped by congress and the industry.

Here is a good example of how we have been screwed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31464689/ns/politics-white_house/

Our lawmakers, who ostensibly represent us, sit down and negotiate with industry heavyweights. OK. However there is no accommodation made for the fact that our lawmakers, collectively, obtain untold amounts of campaign dollars from various industry groups. It is total bullshit to say that the negotiations, done behind closed doors, are in any way proper. As long as the people at the table are comprised of our lawmakers and industry representatives citizens will get screwed.

There has to be a citizen advocate, or three or four, at that same table to keep these assholes in line. And for every minute that passes where this is not the case what we really have is a fraud being committed against the American people.

And I don't care what member of congress is heading this negotiation. Congress is polluted by the reality of how campaign finance works. Institutionally, that member has to take into account the obtainment and retention of political power which are directly influenced by campaign contributions. This is one big fucking lie. Period.