The cost of insurance is driven by the cost of care – see http://www.insuranceinthelight.com. When a non-emergency ambulance trip of 37 miles costs over $1,400 – as reported last week in the Chicago Sun-Times, you can tell something is wrong. Nationalizing healthcare is not going to keep a lid on costs like this. Rather, it will create bureaucratic red tape that will exacerbate the problems.

Transparency and accountability of charges by doctors, hospitals, other providers and insurance companies is the real answer.

Currently, total health care expenditures in the United States are estimated to be $2.4 Trillion for 2007, as published by the National Coalition on Health Care. That does not take into account cost to administer insurance, whether government-run or privately-run. It also does not take into account reserves for incurred but not reported claims, which insurance would otherwise include, lest we be faced with the same situation as the credit problems we have now – financial instruments which were not properly reserved.

I would suspect that any type of properly run national health care program will exceed the electorate’s appetite for an increase in taxes. Once the numbers are discussed in the public square, sentiment will shift.

Medicare is national healthcare. It is hardly a model program.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

It appears you don’t understand the restrictions in those countries. They have far better access than we do. They also don’t have to fear bankruptcy from medical bills, and they cover everyone for better results than us and lower costs.

In fact, I suggest you try going without insurance for a while and find out what restricted access really means.

Yes insurance companies are evil. Hey, lets nationalize car, home, and life inbsurance also. While we are at it, lets nationalize our factories and banks. Oops, that last is already happening, and look how well that will work out for us over the next 20 years.

I am not saying insurance companies are not pat of the problemm but in the endI hope everyone understands that in complex matters there are rarely simple answrs, no matter hoiw appealing they seem to to those who do not understand the subject matter.

I am all for nationalized care, but ony if those I will end up subsidizing in yet another expansion of our tax code are not overweight, do not smoke, and do not drink. Otherwiuse, I am being forced to pay for care of those who cannot exercise the discipline to best constrain health costs, and that is just outrageuous socialism instead of good old plain socialism.

The Senate District 62 DFL is hosting a health insurance reform forum on Saturday. Our panelists will include Rep. Keith Ellison, State Sen. John Marty (author of the Minnesota Health Plan Act), and single-payer advocates Elizabeth Frost and Kip Sullivan.

The forum is at the CWA Hall at 35th Av. and E. Lake St. in Minneapolis form 2-4.

There is no charge, and Minnesota Independent readers get half off!

Seriously, there’s no charge, and this is a chance to not only learn about the issue and the proposals before Congress and the legislature and maybe get your questions answered, but it’s a chance to support the grassroots volunteers putting this on.

http://www.sd62dfl.org

It is clear to any reasonable person that there is a mismatch between the spiraling cost of health care and the accessibility, affordability and quality of health care. The quality concerns do not relate to clinical quality because polling consistently shows that most people are happy with their doctors and hospitals. It relates to value. We are not getting the bang for our buck as a society when so many people are uninsured and we must be impoverished before we qualify for government programs. The dilemma we face with health care is not in the way we deliver care but in the way we pay for care. These swing voters, or perhaps more accurately newly re-enfranchised voters, are not partisan zealots and are actually responding to this real concern.

A bipartisan approach assumes that there are two interested parties in the debate. There are really three; the Republicans, the Democrats and Everyone Else. Most Republicans right now hate the idea of government involvement in anything that does not promote the agenda of the fundamentalist religious right. Most Democrats like the idea of government involvement in anything that promotes the agenda of the progressive or liberal left. Most Everyone Else would like to see an end to the polarized partisan foolishness. They would like to get something done.

59% is a good number. If a reformed health care system performed well, that number would grow. The challenge in health care reform is not how to achieve bipartisan consensus. That is not possible when change is either opposed or supported by two parties with inflexible views. To achieve health care reform it will be important not to aim to please Republicans or Democrats, but to fashion reforms that will please Everyone Else. Most Democrats are on board with reform anyway. Some fiscally and socially responsible Republican voters would be too if the reforms take into consideration their reasonable concerns. Everyone Else would breathe a sigh of relief if we were actually able to accomplish positive change.

If health care reform is cost effective, allows a free choice of providers, develops a dedicated fund that cannot be raided by politicians for their own purposes, adequately reimburses doctors and hospitals for their services, stays out of making medical decisions by preserving the integrity of the doctor/patient relationship and preserves competition between independently owned providers based on quality of care, then some Republicans, most Democrats and Everyone Else will likely support it.

As this recession worsens and we are faced with making stark choices regarding what services we deem to be essential, I believe that most people will realize that their health, or the health of their relatives and friends, is worth more to them than most material things. To meet the essential needs of ourselves, are families and our society we will need a health care system that we can afford and that we can live with. The Minnesota Health Plan Act will need some additional tweeking but it essentially meets those criteria as it is proposed. I hope that it receives serious consideration.