You're the best kind of activist. You write, you call, you stay angry. They're going to try and water down even the compromise. We can't let them, and the only way we can stop them is by showing them the numbers. We have to protest by the MILLIONS.

I'm frustrated by all of this. They've got foot-dragging down to a science, but I'm with you, and I'll keep fighting, too.

I'm alegeric to blogs.

What's lacking in all the discussion is compromise - each side willing to give a little ground to the other so that a meaningful legislative package can be created that services the needs of each without overstepping too much into territory the other side will not support. Take for example the ruckus over single payer/public option (SP/PO).

Many on the right side of the isle object to SP/PO simply because of the enormous costs it is thought to contain - who's going to pay for it is a common question asked by many. Well, there is a recent essay one can find in The Atlantic, How American Health Care Killed My Father by David Goldhill, that opens a door that many are not aware of.

Mr. Gold hill points out a simple fact people choose to ignore in this debate. Simply stated, employer-based health insurance, on average, costs more than $12,000 per family to a company providing health insurance benefits to its employees. Mr. Goldhill has experience running several companies and company divisions of various sizes during career, so he knows that employee raises, as well as entry-level hiring salaries, are tightly limited by what it costs companies to provide health-care benefits. And this is the hidden jewel ... the employer isn't paying for employee health care - you are. It comes out of your potential wage increase. So technically, employee health benefits are equilivant to a intangible, hidden salary that one cannot leverage.

If you're with me so far, then you should see the "were's the money going to come from" aspect of the debate...you've already earned it. The problem now is how to get the best bang for the buck. Remember, that $12,000 benefit is a "packaged deal" between your company and the
insurance company providing the benefit for a large group. If you were to contact the same insurer for a personal policy, the costs would be far greater than $12,000. So here's where the real debate should be. How does single individual or family get affordable health insurance that is reasonable in both cost and benefits.

The single payer/public option should be considered the same as Medicare. In fact, Josh Marshall at Talking Ponts Memo as suggested the government open Medicare to all. And if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense because the infrastructure necessary to startup a single payer/public option is already in place and fully accepted by the medical community.

As for the conservative community who has fears of runaway federal budgets and deficits if such a program were to be forced on everyone,perhaps a second option could be offered to ease their concerns. Here, Mr. Goldhill suggests health savings account—a vehicle where people would contribute a minimum percentage of income(think that $12,000 the company pays for your\health benefits)as a pre-tax, subject to a floor and a cap in total dollar contributions. The income percentage required should rise over a working life, as wages and wealth typically do.His concept for these accounts would allow participants to withdraw money for any purpose, without penalty, once the funds exceed a ceiling established for each age, and at death any remaining money should be disbursed through inheritance. Our current methods of health-care funding create a “use it or lose it” imperative. This new approach would ensure that families put aside funds for future expenses, but would not force them to spend the funds only on health care. Unfortuntely, he doesn't go into much detail as to whom would be responsible for administering such an option ( it'll have to be worked out in Congress), but at the very least, it should satisfy the conservatives to a tee.

Now one must keep in mind neither plan would be enough to cover traumatic accident injuries and those complications as a result of old age. Again, Mr. Goldhill suggest we consider catastrophic insurance with a threshold of $50,000 or more would be better. The real key in the use of this type of insurance would be to restrict the coverage to true catastrophes, where only a minority of us should ever be beneficiaries. Here's the life line to the insurance companies to keep them afloat. They could provide the additional insurance for activities where injuries can tax either health care option - skiing, bicycling, water sports, outdoors recreation and so forth.

Now I've robbed a lot from Mr. Goldhill's essay, but I did so in order to get people to sit back and really think about what options are available
and how can everyone come out a winner on the issue. There's already money in the system to pay for it and everyone has earned it too so why not use it to the best advantage for everyone? And it may be cheaper for the business community too. There is plenty of room in the debate and both
options could be employed simultaneously to satisfy the particular political leaning of the individual. Because if we don't, the cost of health care in America will be completely out of reach in a matter of afew years then the current coverage people are so happy with will be completely useless - you can't expect business to keep providing a benefit that cuts too deeply into their profits.

Bulldog, that's nonsense. Your $10 aspirin costs $10 because somebody decided they could get away with that. Look around at that big, fancy hospital. Did they really need to build the three-story atrium with the waterfall? Did they really need 10 acres of manicured grounds? Did the walls really need to be made of Italian marble or undulating tile mosaics?

I see plenty of waste everywhere I look when it comes to health care and medicine and it's not the fault of the well-run program known as Medicare.