It is not the cost, it is the administrative cost6

Last I saw, it was 7 times as high for private plans than for Medicare.

Plus, if you look at the federal budget, you will discover that Social
Security, Medicare/Medicaid costs are spread over several different line
items.

And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative costs are computed
very differently for government and private entities. When they are
figured on the same basis, they are very close.

<snipped for brevity)

You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
Medicare overhead  is a very small fraction of overhead of prepaid
health plans.

The current system where the Blues and Aetna provide most of the health
care in the US is incredibly inefficient.

I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to
add/neutralize some of the extremist portions of your argument - which
inevitably are the downfall of such opinions as they polarize conversations
to either being pro or anti - whatever, which is often quite
counterproductive.

Again, my opinions come from an MD who sees and appreciates the highlights
of BOTH sides of this issue, so be careful of attacking people in the
middle... since people like me are (or should be) your target audience...

problem #1 - promoting sources of information know to be nothing more than
propaganda machines.  Propaganda should never be used as a source of
meaningful information or insight.  It's like saying "OJ was innocent, just
read what his defense attorney had to say!".

Is this really a good thing?  Perhaps if medicare had better (read:  more
costly) administration, it would not the be easy target it is right now as
the poster child for a poorly run government organization.  Beware those
double edged swords.  Medicare is absolutely fraugth with problems.

You later compare the US system to other nations.  Are you aware that in
such nations you go to the doctor you have and that's it.  Everything else
is done through that individual?  A very difficult system to change MD's and
an impossilbe (virtually) system to "choose your own doctor".  Right now, if
I had colon cancer, there is ONE surgeon of the dozens I personally know who
I would go to.  I would wait to see her if need be because there are none
better that I know of.  We can do that in the US.

There are also incentives,  including non monetary, to provide care.  A fair
and unbiased assessment would compare those competing forces to determine
the net effect.  A difficult task, but a necessary one to advance either
side of this debate in any meaningful manner.

Yes.  Will a singler payer change that?

The US government investing in preventative care?  You would need to prove
to me that our government has both the interest and the *ability* to do
advance such a topic, since they currently do an absolutely abysmal job at
this.

Sounds like arranging a government run monopoly to me.  How will you
guarantee to us that the government will not just continue the current
abuses and pocket the profits for themselves?  Should we trust this to the
"integrity" of our lawmakers and politicians?

Nor does the government, correct?

An interesting concept that has been proposed here and elsewhere a number of
times.  Those who oppose single payer can provide some examples of how this
will happen and those that oppose it provide examples of this will not
happen.  The fact is, however, we DO NOT KNOW if this will end up costing
more or less money.  We do not know if this will increase or decrease
efficiency.  We do not know if this will lead to better or worse care.
Comparisons to other country that perform strict cost control and are
excessively regulatory and micromanaging are obsolete since their societies
and governments operate fundamentally differently.

While a fine institution, anything coming out of that place needs to be
taken with more than a grain of salt since they are an extremely leftist
institution.

I'll avoid overly condescending insults at this point.  Suffice it to say, a
reasonable person understands that we can solve the health care crisis by
simply cutting paperwork.  In addition, many believe that a government run
healthcare system will lead to more paperwork, not less.

Let me revise that statement - those who are paying for it actually are
getting it.  It's those who are NOT paying for it that are not getting it.
That, of course, is an issue that drives straight to the heart of the
philosophical debate here - how socialist of a country do we want to become?
To what point will America accept redistribution of wealth?  To what point
should we?  Should we change our fundamental outlook of "there are no free
rides"?

As above, comparisons to other countries without somehow accounting for the
fundamental differences in philosophy, can not succeed and lack meaning.
Caning seems to work well in some other countries ...  China has a wealth of
organs for transplantation thanks to the involuntary offering of their
executed "criminals".  Just because things are done in other nations is not,
in and of itself, a reason to do it here.

It can not be until it's been tried.  Until then all this your examples are
high paid guesses.  I wonder how many prescriptions could have been paid for
by cutting such "task forces"...

8 thousand is not exactly an overwhelming response, since there are almost
3/4 of a million docs in this country.  I think something a bit more than 1%
of docs will be needed for that to have any significance, don't you?

Download and print these trifold brochures to help promote single payer
Universial Health Care

http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/HealthCareBrochurePetition.pdf

http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/HealthCareBroch_NoPetition.pdf

Learn More:
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php

Health care is currently dominated by insurance firms and HMOs, institutions
that are more bureaucratic and costly than Medicare. Right now, private
companies are charging about 18% for administration, while the cost of
Medicare administration is only 3%. People are waiting longer for
appointments. Fewer people are getting a doctor of their choice. Physicians
are being given monetary incentives to deny care. Pre-existing illnesses are
being used to deny coverage. It's important to understand that insurance
companies make more money by NOT providing health care. A single-payer
system can save money by investing in preventive care, as well as by cutting
out the insurance companies' profits.
Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone. Physicians and health
practitioners do.

Non-profit national health insurance will actually decrease total health
care spending while providing more treatment and services -- through
reductions in bureaucracy and cost-cutting measures such as bulk purchasing
of prescriptions drugs. A study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and
Public Citizens found that health care bureaucracy last year cost the United
States $399.4 billion. The study estimates that national health insurance
could save at least $286 billion annually on paperwork, enough to cover all
of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone
in the United States.

How would we pay for it?
Funding will come primarily from existing government health care spending
(more than $1 trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7% (almost $1
trillion). Employers who provide coverage are already paying 8.5%, on
average. That would raise about $920 billion. In addition to that, there's
already over a trillion dollars being spent a year in local, state and
federal dollars for health care. The American people are already paying for
universal health care; they're just not getting it.

Privately delivered health care, publicly financed -- has worked well in
other countries, none of which spend as much per capita on health care as
the United States. The cost-effectiveness of a single-payer system has been
affirmed in many studies, including those conducted by the Congressional
Budget Office and the General Accounting Office. The GAO has said: "If the
US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in
Canada, the savings in administrative costs (10% to private insurers) would
be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."

Over the years, groups and individuals as diverse as Consumers Union, labor
unions, the CEO of General Motors, the editorial boards of the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution and St. Louis Post Dispatch, and Physicians for a
National Health Program have endorsed a single-payer approach. In the
"Physicians Proposal for National Health Care," 7,782 physicians agreed that
"proposals that would retain the roles of private insurers -- such as calls
for tax-credits, Medicaid/CHIP expansions, and pushing more seniors into
private HMOs -- are prescriptions for failure."

It is sound economics -- what actuaries call "Spreading the Risk" -- to
extend Medicare to younger and healthier sectors of our population, thereby
putting everyone in one insurance pool. It permanently saves and improves
Medicare, while eliminating duplicative private and government
bureaucracies.

====================================
Petition to the Democratic Party:
We Want Universal Health Care
(you do not have to be a democrat to sign the petition)
http://www.kucinich.us/petitions/petition_text_uhc1.php?s=p
I, the undersigned, approve the establishment of a universal single-payer
national health care system in the U.S.

Such a system will be publicly financed and privately delivered, allowing
people to choose their own health care providers. The system will provide
preventive health care, dental care, mental health care, and affordable
prescription drugs. This system will make health care available to everyone,
regardless of pre-existing conditions, status of employment, or income
level.

I urge Democrats to make this resolution a plank in the 2004 party platform.

http://www.kucinich.us/petitions/