No, I'm not suggesting that universal health care is the way to go. I'm saying that, should our representatives deem universal health care necessary, then the citizens of America deserve the exact same coverage that others choose for us - but not themselves.

I say this as someone whose tax returns were lowered because the IRS decided that I didn't really spend that much on medical expenses - never mind the receipts.

And to do that would mean lowering the coverage for congress not raising the coverage for the people...no one can afford that level of coverage universally....it's not feasible. Everyone hates to hear the word "rationing" but it's how reasonably priced health care is meted out with or without insurance as the payor.

I'm not sure I'd agree that we all want to choose our insurance -- for all practical purposes, most of us don't now. We go with what our workplace provides; at most, choice goes to the level of coverage or choosing to buy additional coverage. Sure, maybe I could decide to forgo what I have at work and look elsewhere for coverage for my family, but practically speaking that's not an option because of pre-existing conditions and other concerns. I think that when most Americans talk about "choice" with regard to insurance, they mean choice as to doctors and other health care providers, not as to insurance coverage.

Maybe I'm off here, but I think what most people want in health care coverage is stability. I know I'm not alone is seeing premiums, deductables and co-pays all shoot up like crazy in recent years -- much faster than income has. I think we want to see some brakes on the sky-rocketing costs. I think we don't want to have to worry about what happens to health insurance if we lose a job, or to have to turn down that new job we might really want because insurance concerns get in the way.

And I'll add that I doubt I'm alone in thinking that if insurance companies provided more coverage or incentives for preventive medicine and wellness, costs for curative medicine might down.

I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing with you -- more paying devil's advocate -- but why is it ridiculous? If everyone paid for health insurance through taxes, particularly if they are "targeted taxes" like paying into Social Security, then everyone is sharing in the responsibility for coverage, including their own. Doesn't seem that different from personal responsibility through paying premiums.

Meanwhile, those of us who have coverage are paying for those who don't, either through taxes or through higher bills from health care providers to make up the difference.

Exactly.

Which is essentially the same thing. Every insurance company gives you the option to see a set group of physicians. If you choose one insurance policy, you have one set of physicians that accept that policy and so on. I agree that for many, they get what their employer gives them, but for a large part of the country, there is a little more choice and it may allow patients to choose whether or not to pick a plan based on cost, physicians covered and many other variables.

I have no problem with "lowering the standards" of representatives who don't show concern for their constituents. I've heard too many horror stories from the British & Canadian health care systems to believe that government knows how much health care each individual needs. We still are a nation of individuals, aren't we? Or should I be practicing my goose step?

It's fairly clear that we got into this mess, at least in part, through the reliance on employer-paid health care - that is, it appears that the abuses, indulgences, etc. by large insurance carriers (which help drive up prices) are met with very little outcry because, well, the employer only cares about getting it cheap, the employee has little or no choice in the matter (and never deals with the amount taken out, the negotiations over coverage, etc.), and it's profit symbiosis for the corporations.

I don't think the answer is to suddenly cut the cord and go individual - although the market could possibly sustain it (and, in fact, might improve efficiency drastically), people would shit their pants, and the sudden void created would be ripe for even worse abuse. Not to mention reliance on the f-ing government to suddenly run an efficient insurance program - really? That's going to happen?

We're really in a hard-core mess, which is why the GOP rumor- and fear-mongering is so angering - there's no doubt something has to give. Fox News had a "counterpoint" to Obama from the guy who runs Aetna - oh, no kidding? He's not in favor? They only made $1.34 billion last year, it's AMAZING he's in favor of the status quo.

The only short-term solution that makes any sense to me is an overhaul of the regulatory system - installing controls similar to those in place for investment products could expose some of these high-profit 'irregularities', find where the 'average' person is being screwed in the actuarial table, decrease over- or under-the-table deals with hospitals and doctors that enrich both at the cost of the consumer, etc.

The fact of the matter is that nationalized health care should be the perfect solution - after all, insurance is simply pooled risk, so the larger the pool the more accurate our risk determination should become - but we're so far off course now that I'm not sure there is any way to get there, and I'm not at all confident government overhead and inefficiency won't be worse than simple profit+overhead from existing carriers, even as inflated as those are currently.

Quick edit to clarify a point numerically:

There is no doubt that insurance carriers are actually in FAVOR of higher-cost health care as a product, at least to the point where it doesn't price out the majority of the population (and, like every market-based company, they're pretty cognizant of where this point is located, and know they're not yet close). The reason for this is simple:

Insurance companies are required to pay out approximately what they take in, within a certain fudge factor. However, they are expected to invest that income, and earn dollars (profit) based on those investments while they hand onto the money (plus, potentially, a certain off-the-top number for overhead).

If health care costs X, they get X*investment% + X/overhead% in earn. If health care costs 10X, they get 10 times that amount. The math, at least for the insurer, is that a bigger risk pool (requiring more premium) equals more profit. The more stuff costs, the better, to a point.

^^^ Wisdom.

Cosign.