I'd have more to say on the topic except we (Mr. “Avark” [sic] and I) came to a PRIVATE agreement that we would not intrude on each others 'personal space' (internetually speaking) and that is why I have limited myself to a single comments here on his “opinions” at TMV.

His latest personal ad hominem attacks on Kathy both here at TMV and on his censorial site (blanket amnesty… right!) and his smart assed remarks about me and my position may very well nullify our offline agreement.

Come on if you want Jason but you ought to think twice before you open it up again… I kept my OneNote copies of our last go round.

Note to TMV editors: I have waited until this thread was off the front page before responding to Jason Stecks attack on my comment about him… If you take away his power to censor he has nothing and that's why I'm saddened that TMV has given him the ability to “moderate” (read censor) comments here… AGAIN. Isn't it time to allow a coward and fool to be called a “coward and a fool” without having to fear that your comment will be '(Edited by a moderator)'?

Only the greatest comment in the history of the Moderate Voice!

Thanks for the love! Right back at you, big guy.

profit = income – cost. So if cost goes up, how exactly does profit go up with it? We're talking about insurance here. If insurance has to pay more, profits go down. They can try to recoup that loss by increasing premiums, but they can only do that to a point. So it seems to me there is already a pretty good incentive to limit costs. That's not to say we don't need changes to make controlling costs easier, and there certainly are aspects of the system were the incentives are skewed. But I think the above statement is a gross simplification.

To address the original post, if Obama and the left had started with single payer, there would have been a backlash and the debate would have died like it did with Clinton. Obama is a pragmatist. By proposing something more moderate, he was able to get some of those on the other side on board right away (I'm not talking about politicians, I'm talking about the industry). That will likely by the key to success. So Obama compromised a little to start, and that triggered the industry to recognize it needed to compromise. So neither side is starting with the “whole” loaf here. As someone else said, the “whole load” on the right is not the current system, as the government is clearly very much involved in health care as it is.

If anyone cares, here's my plan:

1) Get rid of employer-based health plans
2) Regulate private insurers such that they cannot deny coverage, but they can adjust rates according to formulas they must publish (auto insurance companies must do this), and those formulas must be based on lifestyle choices that affect health, not on current health status. For example, a smoker with lung cancer pays the same as a smoker without lung cancer, because the premium isn't based on the disease but the behavior.
3) Subsidize health coverage on a sliding scale for the poor, and pay for it by taxing insurance companies basd on the number of high-income person they insure. Yes, this is re-distribution of income. Yes, I'm a conservative, but I believe that the free market has flaws, especially with regards to healthcare and education.
4) Mandate insurance coverage. A civilized nation can't turn away people who need care, so the only alternative is to require at least a very basic level of insurance for all.

I don't hate you.

But you ban people over there, and once, one of them was me.

And of course, there's plenty of real discussion here. There always has been.

I can take care of THAT!

Only the greatest comment in the history of the Moderate Voice!

And I still say the private insurance has a stronger incentive to reduce costs, because of the profit motive, than government bureaucracies.

We just fundamentally see the world differently on this.

I knew the phraseology of “afraid” would go over like a lead balloon.

“Again,not the health care or health care provider I want for me, or my children and grandchildren.”

That's my point, not providing a public option is not the same as making it mandatory. The only people who gain from pushing that meme are the profit oriented private insurers. If the public option is doomed to complete governmental chaos and skyrocketing costs, let it fail in the market. I freely admit that I fear that private insurance is doomed to the same skyrocket going forward too.

Their concern is not cost, it's profit. That difference means that increasing costs make for ever larger contracts and ever larger profits. If your margin is only 3%, wouldn't you want 3% of a hundred million over 3% of 75 million? Their profits grow due to the upward climb. Now that I find scary.

The way to cost containment is through establishing medical “best practices” that help to eliminate defensive medicine. Clearly, not running a test that symptoms do not warrant is expensive and wasteful. I'd certainly like to see the end of frivolous law suits too. We both know, however, some lawsuits are more than warranted.

I can take care of THAT!

Whatever I have done to make you hate me so much, I apologize before. Hopefully, we can set these issues aside and start over in the interests of a real discussion.

I thought I have been clear that my 'fears' are that this will become a mandatory program, not an option, over time; that will make the current cost structure seem like the good old days within a decade; it will decrease the quality of care for all but the poorest; it will reduce and retard innovation and new technologies; and it will effectively be the largest tax increase in history, and the creation of the largest federal agency in existence eventually (yes, larger than the Defense Department).

Again,not the health care or health care provider I want for me, or my children and grandchildren.

No one has said that a public plan would be cost free to those who pick it, you got to pay just like private insurance. You're currently paying for the uninsured now; why are you afraid of that fact like you say you are about the public option?

You can't believe the current system that charges us for the uninsured is the way you prefer it, do you?

Your logic only holds water if we start from the same position.

George's points, cribbed or original still are valid points. Personal cost to cover society's needs are an acceptable part of of our society. Or would you prefer the “every man for himself” theory of social Darwinism?

I certainly don't need Federal highways where you live, just near me…. Sounds kind of silly.

I don't need health insurance for other people, just me and mine…… same logic.

A large family and Democrats have a lot in common: teenagers and Democrats are always happy spending other people's money.

Governmental subsidy systems promote inefficiency in production and efficiency in coercion and subservience, while penalizing efficiency in production and inefficiency in predation.

First rule in government spending: why have one when you can have two at triple the price?

“A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”

The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.

The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.

I'm always happy to crib a good idea.

I didn't originate this idea either:

There is nothing intuitively obvious to me that says it's better for the pool of our money to go to several private, profit-seeking companies whose policies impose extra costs on us.

Well said George. And yes, Mr. “Avark” (sic) does have a way of making his true self known… a quick trip to the link he posted above will tell you all you need to know.

Vegetarians still pay taxes that support cattle farmers.

You running out of other peoples ideas to crib?