It's not "socialized" medicine. Single payer just cuts out the insurance companies who work for profit. Life and death should not be profit driven. People should be able to choose to have treatment even if it would cost the company money. You heard me, CHOICES, but right now a doctor and their patient cannot decide a course of treatment, it's the insurance company that makes this final choice. Patience are held hostage by their insurance carrier and it's a fact.

Currently most doctors spend far too much time fighting these insurance companies to treat their patience, get payment or to get approval. It's inefficient and it's not working.

And health care would not be run by the Government, the insurance part, the part that pays for medical treatment would be Government run.

Is it perfect? Hell no, it's flawed as well but I don't believe profits should decid who gets treatment and who doesn't. And just because someone has a "pre-existing" condition should not mean they can't have reasonable health care coverage.

Eeewwww. Profit. Icky profit. It's so mean. Everyone should get whatever they want, but no one should have to pay for it.

Wake up, you socialist nincompoop. The sooner you get a grip on how the world actually works, the sooner you'll drop this coercive, collectivist nonsense.

If you want to live in a workers paradise, move to Cuba. Michael Moore says they have splendid health care that's freeeeeee!

There is nothing wrong with profit, please. There are just some things that should not be profit driven. Your hyperbole proves my point. Not once in my comment did I say profit was bad, it serves a purpose for many industries and it's important thing. I have no desire to be a socialist for crying-out-loud!

And nice ad hominem, you didn't say one thing constructive in your comment or rebut what I had to say with anything other than name calling and stereotypes.

Thanks for the meaningful dialog.

I'm certainly for profit as well, but Single Payer has a point. Most businesses are profit driven, but medicine should not be one of them, especially considering a healthy public is wields a more productive work force.

Right now Big Pharma and Big Insurance control the health care system, but yet I don't think the government would do a better job.

It will be interesting to see which controlling interest eventually comes out on top.

SMS

If you listen to Vern enough you would think that WE are the third world country and Cuba is the world leader in science and medicine; not the other way around. This mentality is dangerous and wields terrible results. The worst part is that even though countries that have already moved towards more government control of healthcare (canada, britain) show a clear move towards healthcare rationing, socialists are so invested in this idea that they tend to overlook the fact that it takes 6 months in line for someone to have a simple surgery so they end up coming to the United States.

Oh and they also fail to give a good reason besides "profit" (the real reason) for why the US is a world leader in innovation in healthcare and creating new drugs.

The most delusional part of Vern's (and any other communist) theory is that they actually believe that doctors are in favor of being enslaved. Do they really think doctors spent all those years and all that money going to med school, so they could eventually work for the government.

Sir, yours is the philosophy of death.

"There are just some things that should not be profit driven."

Most businesses are profit driven, but medicine should not be one of them, especially considering a healthy public is wields a more productive work force.

Why not?

Hi Matt. Glad you liked my new phrase “Healthcare for the people, by the people.” Cribbed from the Gettysburg, of course. The original Register editorial, just like your writing, kept harping on “STATE this, GOVERNMENT-run that,” and you “conservatives” are constantly acting like the government is some kind of foreign cancer or tumor. Like we’re in the Soviet Union or Saddam’s Iraq or something. But I was brought up to think of the US as a democracy; the government is us. We the people, working together to solve our problems. And healthcare is a huge one.

You shouldn’t have such allegiance to unelected, overpaid CEOs of insurance firms, whose only responsibility is to make a profit for their shareholders, which they generally do by denying or limiting treatment whenever they can. (They call their expenses "medical losses.") The people running the new state healthcare agency envisioned in SB840 will be elected, and appointed by our elected officials—-for limited terms—-and they won’t last long if they don’t do their job of providing all Californians with comprehensive coverage. Call that “socialized” insurance if that makes you happy, but it’s also democracy.

Maybe I can help you out with one thing that seems to have you flummoxed:

"The claim that thousands of Californians will continue to die each year (an assertion that is difficult to refute, but hard to see how SB840 will end death)."

Okay, I guess I could have been clearer in my article, that’s what happens when you write about a subject so many times and you hate to repeat yourself. But I was referring to the 22,000 needless deaths in America each year to to lack of health insurance. (Institute of Medicine.) That makes probably at least 2000 Californians. When I first got involved in this issue a few years ago the figure was 18,000 deaths a year, now it’s up to 22,000. That’s like a September 11 attack every 51 days. Maybe something Americans should start to think of this as something we need to solve collectively, like national security, crime, fire, etc. Like all other civilized nations do.

Vern,

I almost got lost in that thicket of sophistry and straw men.

The philosophy underpinning your reasoning is an enormous blank check for unlimited government action in whatever sphere the Left deems important that day. In this case, Lefties manufactures a "right" to health care and then clamors for government to guarantee that phony right.

The United States is a republic (if we can keep it, as Mr. Franklin warned us), not a democracy. We have a limited government to which our Constitution assigned specific powers. It is not "us" in your left-wing sense, which utlimately makes what is yours mine and what's mine yours.

If it'll make you happy, we'll refer to the scheme you support as "democratic socialized medicine."

Your theory about "we the people" running this government health care bureaucracy cracks up on the rocks of the reality. Big government bureaucracies are not responsive to the people they are supposed to serve. They are not even very responsive to their elected heads, who came and go even as the bureaucrats remain. They are responsive to themselves and their own interests.

I'd much rather move away from are current mixed medical economy -- part-government, part-free market -- toward a genuine free market in health care. You rhapsodize about "we the people, working together to solve our problems" but fail to recognize that is what the free market does every day, and in an infinitely more massive and efficient manner than government can.

frankly, I don't believe lefties calling for turning the health care sector over to government ultimately care whether it will be efficient or provide high quality care. The Left is psychically satisfied knowing the abstract masses have some kind of health care, even if its scarce, shoddy and rationed by government bureaucrats.

Vern espouses a social democratic vision of government that is alien to the American Founding. And like all leftists, he's transfixed by the enervated, dying welfare states of Western Europe.

Well, we’re certainly getting down to brass tacks and I’m sure we’ll never agree, but it’s been fun. I don’t know why you rightwingers are always so insistent that government agencies are doomed to inefficiency and runaway bureaucracy. I won’t bring up the IRS and DMV, because none of us particularly like to pay taxes or stand in line for a drivers’ license, but one thing I hear from you lot is the horrors of the US Postal Service. “Do you want the same sort of people delivering your healthcare that deliver your mail?” you often say. Really, I can count on one hand the times I’ve had trouble with the Post Office in my forty-some years. I think they do a great job. And the Veterans’ Administration is a model of efficiency that our entire healthcare system should emulate. Let’s see what else we’ve got here…

The United States is a republic (if we can keep it, as Mr. Franklin warned us)

Ah, Ben Franklin, the guy who created our first “socialized” fire department! (Same Ben I like to quote all the time in re. FISA: “Those who would give up a little liberty etc…”)

If it'll make you happy, we'll refer to the scheme you support as "democratic socialized medicine."

Socialized INSURANCE. Not medicine. I’ll take that.

frankly, I don't believe lefties calling for turning the health care sector over to government ultimately care whether it will be efficient or provide high quality care.

Now THAT’S fighting words! Efficiency and high quality for everyone is exactly what we’re after. We spend more per capita than any other nation on healthcare—nearly twice as much as other nations do—but get results in areas like infant mortality and life expectancy that put us at #37 in the world—right between Croatia and Costa Rica if I remember right. We have amazing healthcare but only for those who can afford it, and also the very poor (who qualify for government programs, and hence are sometimes forced to stay poor.) It is unaffordable for the vast middle of us, and only getting worse year by year. Your free market god is not going to fix this crisis. (Though it may lose you a bunch of elections in the next few years…)

…he's transfixed by the enervated, dying welfare states of Western Europe.

Or how about the Asian tigers—pretty far from enervated and dying, wouldn’t you say? But they manage to provide universal healthcare for their people. We’re talking ALL industrialized countries. Except us.

That is all. Carry on. - The Transfixed One

"Your free market god is not going to fix this crisis."

OH NO! But I'm sure the GOVERNMENT will!

"Or how about the Asian tigers—pretty far from enervated and dying, wouldn’t you say? But they manage to provide universal healthcare for their people. We’re talking ALL industrialized countries. Except us."

First of all, no. Even Japan, which still carries about 30% patient cost, is already experiencing problems with medical errors, long waiting times, and short consultation times. They're also experiencing rising healthcare costs on a broad level, which is increasing the burden on the new generation of taxpayers.

You also fail to mention that EVERY SINGLE industrialized nation that has attempted to provide universal healthcare without rationing services, has FAILED.

Prove me wrong Vern. I dare you.

Damn! A D'anconia Dare! You know I can't walk away from that. I'll be Bach...

As a serial entrepreneur who has met many a payroll, I support wholeheartedly the ideas Friedrich Heyek set forth in "The Road to Serfdom", where he warns against the dangers of collectivism, much in the air after WWII, and powerfully makes the case for free markets. A true classic.

So I am in no way opposed to the idea of the health insurance companies making a profit. If thay can deliver reasonable healthcare while earning a return for their investors, more power to them.

But, alas, they can't. Our healthcare system is badly broken. Almost 50 million people are uninsured, and many who think they are now covered will find themselves driven into bankruptcy by uncovered medical expenses.

On top of all this is the rampant inefficiency: 31% of insurance premiums go to insurance company gross margins and treatment providers' costs for hassling with payment denials. That's $1 billion down the drain every day, over $1,000 wasted per year for every person in the country.

Medicare, meanwhile, devotes only a tiny fraction of its total cost to administration and billing. It is many times more efficient than the private insurance system. In fact, cutting out the waste imposed by the private insurance companies would save enough to extend coverage to everyone.

Hayek points out that some things cannot be left to free markets: e.g., the military, the police, and the fire department are all best handled via collective action. And he goes on to point out that similar collectivisation is also appropriate for healthcare.

What's OK with Heyek is OK with me. So let's collectivize health insurance with 'single payer'. The Army, the Navy, the Coast Guard, the GPS system, the road system, etc. are already 'socialized'. Let's add health insurance to that list. Not health treatment, which would remaim private under single payer.

It's time we join the rest of the civilized world, and provide health care for all.

Sweet - an assist from the Godfather's consigliere, and making good sense too. I didn't know Hayek was down with single payer. Isn't he like, highly thought of at this blog?

I'll have a few countries for D'Anconia tomorrow. You guys wear me out.

Lefties like Vern don't care about quality, as long as there is universality.

Hayek favored nationalized health care?

Right.

Read this, Tom Hagan.

Leftists ALWAYS promise their government-run scheme will improve quality and reduce costs. The problem is they never do, and produce the opposite result instead.

Their lame response, once their schemes fail, is that "at least everyone is covered."

The Left will never, ever abandon a government program once enacted, no matter how badly it has failed, because they think the failure is due to the program not being big enough, or comprehensive enough, or spending enough. Their answer is always to make it bigger.

Here's the link my coding didn't publish:

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=5176

Vern, first of all, anyone who believes Hayek supported socialized healthcare either struggles with their reading comprehension or are just playing stupid.

Second, no. You won't have anything for me today because it was pretty much a rhetorical challenge. I've taken years of classes on this subject and I'm afraid that if my past liberal professors weren't able to come up with anything, it's because it's not out there. Universal healthcare without rationing has NOT been achieved successfully by ANY country in the world.

Matt -

Why not? So you're putting a price on life now? And a premium one at that? I would never advocate socialized medicine, but even the current Medi-Cal system uses multiple private networks. I'd say that's not much of a safety net.

Back in Massachusetts, before the new laws went into effect, every person with state insurance carried the same card. No networks for this doctor or that doctor, they either took MassHealth or they didn't. And many did. And even that is not socialized medicine. It was just a less confusing plan.

I can't offer a solution to this problem, regrettably. I'm just pointing out that we need to find a better way. If you get robbed, you call the cops and the insurance company. If your house catches fire, you call the fire department and again insurance will cover it. If you get cancer and you don't have insurance, you call the doctor and the second mortgage specialist, or if you do have insurance they might cover it, or they could deny your claim... much like any other private company.

And really... why do most lawyers and doctors choose their profession? Do you really think it's an altruistic gesture? No, it's all about the money! We'll always need doctors, but even the worst seem to drive Benzes.

The problem isn't capitalism, it's when profit motive intrudes on the peoples' right to live healthy lives, especially as it creates many of our current health hazards in the first place. Besides, $150 on average for a 15 minute doctor visit and a maybe prescription? That's insane!

Think about it. Why do plastic surgeons make more than ER doctors? That's always sickened me. The whole system is flawed. How can we start from scratch? For starters, banks could provide current doctors some debt forgiveness to lower their income requirements. How about lower malpractice insurance rates and medical tort reform?

Nah! That'll never happen. You rightists are cannibals; why would a rich bank or a rich insurance company help a rich doctor? And yet government bailouts of mortgage banks are expanding rapidly under the current 'Republican' administration. So apparently people aren't worth savings, but corporate entities are. It sends a mixed message if you ask me.

SMS

Sarah, you are delusional if you think it's the Republicans who are blocking medical tort reform.

And your comment about "even the worst seem to drive Benzes"...wow. What did you mean by that? I don't know what's worse: that you think these doctors are all "rich" these days, or that you would look down upon that if they all were.

I'm glad that you admit to not having a solution. Maybe you can just listen for once:

- move our healthcare system to the 21st century: get rid of paper, go online for EVERYTHING
- stop funding emergency healthcare for every illegal in the US
- medical tort reform!
- medical tort reform!
- medical tort reform!
- more access
- more choice
- more preventative clinics
- allow intra-state health insurance bargaining

All those steps ALONE would do ten times as much as this stupid single payer proposal would to drive down the cost on a broad level.

D’Raconia (oops, I mean D’Anconia!)

I have a favor to ask: can you please provide authoritative data that supports the claim of rationing you’ve described? I hear this hyperbole again and again but no one backs it up with facts. It sounds nice and scary, but I’ve yet to find a real person who required surgery in Canada or Britain who did not receive it in a reasonable time. And the surgery you say people come to the United States to receive? Might that be elective surgery (e.g., a blepheroplasty? Hair transplant?) And in terms of rationing, isn’t it reasonable to consider that hundreds of thousands of Californians are constructively rationed from receiving health care due to their financial circumstances?

You and your fellow denigrators of single-payer health care refuse to digest the basic tenet of SB840 that "Single Payer" pointed out: doctors would not work for the government! The only thing that the government replaces is the insurance companies. What is wrong with that? Efficiency would be increased because instead of having to deal with 30 different insurance companies, a doctor would only have to work with one entity. SB 840 also calls for getting rid of paper, as you suggested, and using electronic media for storage of medical information and payment for services to minimize medical errors and expedite payment for physicians. SB 840 would provide more access, more choice, more preventatiive clinics and would render intra-state health insurance bargaining moot. SB 840 also only proposes to fund health care for California residents. The only thing you’ve listed that it doesn’t address is medical tort reform. So really, Draconia, you’re just villifying a concept you’ve erroneously characterized as socialized medicine, but I'm glad to realize that when you get down to the mechanics of it, you really support the idea!

Sweetelle

You state that the only thing the government replaces are the insurance companies, and that there is nothing wrong with that?

There's plenty wrong with that. From a financial standpoint, the state would lose the money that the "evil insurance companies" provide through taxes, not to mention charitable donations from aforementioned "evil companies". What about the tens of thousands of layoffs that would occur since their would be redundant? Efficiency wise, what doctors have to deal with more than a couple different insurance companies. Also, have you ever dealt with this states bureaucracy, not exactly a model for efficiency. Your statement that it would only provide fro California residents means that it would still apply to the 3-5 million illegal aliens here, since they are residents of California. It would not apply to people from AZ, NV, or the other 47 states( or 54 with you're Obama).

California has done nothing to prove they can manage anything right. Look at how well the prison health care system or State Fund if you want to see an example of the government's efficiency and great operations.

D'Anoconia -

I like the way you think. All of those steps are a great start, but I think we still need more. 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,' as they say, so it's really all about access, isn't it? Like I said, the whole system is inherently flawed and needs to be reworked from the ground up.

SMS

There seem to be a lot of people here, on the 'left' and the 'right', who think that they know how universal healthcare works around the world. They 'know' that it 'works' or that it doesn't 'work'.

I suggest that there are panels/institutes that have looked at healthcare systems around the world and, if asked, could come with what they believed would work and be acceptable to the majority of Americans.

This could be a 'base closing' kind of panel/commission, authorized by the congress, that would come up with a plan that would be brought to the congress for an up or down vote.

How about that?

There seem to be a lot of people here, on the 'left' and the 'right', who think that they know how universal healthcare works around the world. They 'know' that it 'works' or that it doesn't 'work'.

I suggest that there are panels/institutes that have looked at healthcare systems around the world and, if asked, could come with what they believed would work and be acceptable to the majority of Americans.

This could be a 'base closing' kind of panel/commission, authorized by the congress, that would come up with a plan that would be brought to the congress for an up or down vote.

How about that?

There seem to be a lot of people here, on the 'left' and the 'right', who think that they know how universal healthcare works around the world. They 'know' that it 'works' or that it doesn't 'work'.

I suggest that there are panels/institutes that have looked at healthcare systems around the world and, if asked, could come with what they believed would work and be acceptable to the majority of Americans.

This could be a 'base closing' kind of panel/commission, authorized by the congress, that would come up with a plan that would be brought to the congress for an up or down vote.

How about that?