Why can't we all have that plan - subsidized by our own tax money? Because the country couldn't afford it unless the costs come down?

I'm all for cutting costs - especially from drug companies.

But the last I heard - we are still spending about One Million Dollars every two minutes for the war in Iraq.

As long as the insurance companies are in the equation, we can expect to continue to pay higher premiums for less coverage.

Those insurance executives would starve without their multimillion dollar salaries. Our members of Congress couldn't exist without insurance company contributions. Just think, they might just have to come up with ways to campaign without spending obscene amounts of money.

1 - Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it.

and

2 - Federal employees also enjoy a significant benefit denied the average American: There is no such thing as a preexisting condition, which keeps many sick people from obtaining insurance. Once hired, federal workers are eligible for coverage no matter their health, with no waiting period.

However, speaking as someone who has Blue Cross/Blue Shield FEP (federal employee plan), let me tell you that all of the other issues that private insurance has remains.  Primarily the denial of care.  When I submitted a rather large claim (around $1000), they asked me for additional information.  Three times.  It took weeks to get reimbursed.  I had a friend who joined one of the HMOs (Kaiser, I think) and when they found a lump in her breast they decided to "watch it".  For a year.  A double mastectomy later, she's fine.  Another friend with a chronic disease had Blue Cross (I believe) deny payment for her drug because it was experimental (although they would happily pay for a more expensive one that didn't work for her).  

So, yes, we have better insurance, but it's still private insurance where they make money by denying care.

Why?

The poll asks:

Do you support health care reform if it means you might be forced out of a plan that lets you see your current doctor?

Besides being an out and out lie, the proposed plan does not do that, this is a standard MO for this guy.

So we are trying to push the "Yes" vote in this poll over 50% and we are very close - then we have a newspaper reporter and two bloggers that are going to contact his office for a reaction, ether denying the accuracy of his own polls - and hopefully getting them removed, or explaining why he is voting against the majority will of his constituents by opposing the bill.

You can help by following this link and voting YES.  Thank you!

Now, we do have a president with a D after his name.

Time to call your reps and just say: "I want my Medicare NOW. Vote YES on Medicare for All."

11 pages long normal print format; 30 pages long with the spacing for comments (mark ups?), listing of sponsors' names, etc.

Compare to the 1000 plus pages for the HR 3200 which requires setting up health insurance "exchanges," which uses taxpayer money to subsidize lower income people's purchase of private for-profit insurance plans with their notorious 30% of the health care dollars going to huge exec compensation packages, lobbying costs, marketing costs, denial of care bureaucracy, paperwork bogs, etc.

One of the beautiful things Rep. Weiner did on Thursday during his "double dare ya, Repubs" amendment presentation was to have charts comparing all the current complexity and proposed complexity with the utter simplicity of Medicare for All--where, currently, 95-97% of health care dollars go to CARE.

Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard (his studies on costs are used by just about every player in the health cost debates) and PNHP says single payer, Medicare for All, would result in overall $350 Billion per year savings, and that has been increased in the most recent studies to $400 Billion per year savings.

That's $350-$400 Trillion over 10 years--and would provide comprehensive coverage for everyone, from day one, dollar one. No deductions, no co-pays, iirc includes vision and dental. Prescriptions.

My wife is a family physician.  For many years she working in private practice.  It was a constant battle with the insurance companies.  They could not take the time to do things like talking to patients on the phone or by email, even if it would avoid an office visit, because they would not get paid for it.  All the incentives were to do procedures that the insurance companies would pay for even if they were not needed (EKGs for example are quick, easy, reimbursable, and utterly pointless unless the person is actually having a heart attack).

Now she works at Kaiser Permanente.  She is on salary and her bonuses are based on the health and satisfaction of her patients.  
Look at diabetes.  It is one of the fastest growing and most problematic medical conditions in the U.S.  At Kaiser she has support from nutritionists, and dedicated staff who check in with patients, offer classes, monitor blood sugar, etc.  The better controlled her diabetics blood sugar is the more she gets paid.  In private practice she would try to get diabetics to follow the regimen but most insurance companies won't pay for the classes, nutritionists, etc., so there was only so much she could do.  (Several years ago the New York Times ran an article about the inability of Beth Israel Medical Center to sustain its diabities center because insurers would not pay for it.)

1. Eliminate the profit margin - research shows profits are the smallest share of every dollar spent on healthcare.  

2. Standard forms would reduce costs to medical providers - a standard claim form already exists - it's called the 837.  There are other "forms" you can use to obtain coverage info, get claim status and payment information electronically in a file right now.  Other items like referrals and pre-certification requests can be sent in electronically also.  These forms were developed by standards organizations years ago under the administrative simplification section of the HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountablility Act (HIPAA) to cover a wide range of scenarios.  The degree to which these have been implemented by doctors who don't want to shell out the money to their practice mgmt software vendor is the issue.  Eliminating the insurance company however, doesn't solve this problem.  

3. Risk spread through the entire population - eliminating the insurance company doesn't solve this problem.  That's a mandate for coverage - nothing to do w/the insurance company.

4. Government negotiated "large volume" prices" for drugs and equipment - this has nothing to do w/insurance companies but definitely will help.  What were talking about here however are costs associated w/a service - similar to fees charged by doctors, hospitals and labs.

That seems pretty affordable to me since I have to pay three times that amount.