* Who has “no access” to health care? Simply because you’re uninsured doesn’t mean you don’t have care. You know this.*

You mean “access” like this?
http://www.ramusa.org/learn/media.html

or this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/09emergency.html?scp=31&sq=uninsured%20health%20care&st=cse

or this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/nyregion/18insure.html?scp=2&sq=uninsured%20health%20care&st=cse

“In which tens of millions more have coverage so meager that a single serious illness could send them into bankruptcy?”

*This fact, while sad, does not mean we need government healthcare.*

The fact that you believe this suggests that we will never agree on this issue. I think this fact absolutely means we need universal health care. To paraphrase Sarah Palin, I don’t want to live in an America that thinks it’s okay for people to endure financial ruin because they have the bad luck to get seriously ill. I believe health care is a basic human right.

*We do not have “private enterprise”. Govt. pays 1/2 of all healthcare expenditures now. How’s that working out?*

Actually, very well for the people who have it. THEY don’t have to worry about getting health care they can afford, when they need it. Medicare is such a popular social program that even the most dedicated free-market conservatives don’t dare mess with it. So popular, in fact, that a lot of Americans seem to believe it can’t possibly be a government program.

It’s the rest of us who are having the problems.

*Let people shop for their care directly, and insurers market directly to these people, rather than their employers.*

Matt, the fact that you think this would work suggests to me that you have either never shopped for insurance directly, or are young and healthy enough that your insurance is cheap. Here is what happens in the real world to people to whom insurers “market directly.”

http://www.consumerreports.org/health/insurance/health-care-on-your-own-1-08/overview/health-care-on-your-own-ov.htm
and

http://www.consumerreports.org/health/insurance/health-insurance/overview/health-insurance-ov.htm

*Sure, there will always need to be a baseline of care, which taxpayer dollars should support.*

What is a “baseline of care”? Checkups? Doctor visits? Where do you draw the line at the baseline (or, to put it another way, at what point does rationing begin)?

I think I’m about talked out on this. Just please look at the links.

” The status quo, in which 50 million Americans have no access to health care?”

Who has “no access” to health care? Simply because you’re uninsured doesn’t mean you don’t have care. You know this.

“In which we spend more per capita than any other industrialized country but are no healthier in the end?”

Life expectancy is not the only measure of health. And of course, you neglect to mention that those other countries profit off of the innovations of our free market, without having to spend the money in the first place.

“In which tens of millions more have coverage so meager that a single serious illness could send them into bankruptcy?”

This fact, while sad, does not mean we need government healthcare. Tens of millions are facing bankruptcy due to the housing crisis – are you proposing we give them all a house with taxpayer dollars? (putting aside the fact that it is essentially what Fannie and Freddie did).

“What do you propose instead? And don’t tell me it’s to let “private enterprise” work its magic. Private enterprise is what we have had all this time. And it isn’t working.”

We do not have “private enterprise”. Govt. pays 1/2 of all healthcare expenditures now. How’s that working out?

What I would propose is to remove government from the equation altogether, and end the employer tax benefits. Let people shop for their care directly, and insurers market directly to these people, rather than their employers. Remove the third party payors, like the government. Sure, there will always need to be a baseline of care, which taxpayer dollars should support. But beyond that, let’s make the market more transparent and make the consumer the purchaser, not their employer.

There is no point in adding another massive drain on the economy in a clearly unfunded mandate when there’s no evidence the care will improve.

I thought about it. You’re right. The government probably sends out secret mercenaries right now to get rid of Medicare patients that cost the system too much money.

We should destroy all the banking industry records, burn state ID cards, shred passports, and forfeit all frequent flyer miles. Then we should cover over our license plates and wear masks everywhere we go. Oh yeah, and make everyone’s social security numbers 999-99-9999.
How dare our government know anything about us.

If you don’t want to be a part of a national medical database, then opt out. Find an ultra-conservative physician who deals only in cash and pay for care out of your pocket, including all the repeat testing because previous data wasn’t available to your treating health care providers.

I’m all for keeping tabs on governmental prying eyes, but if you’re saying it’s appropriate to have separate medical records at each of thousands of hospitals and tens of thousands of doctor’s offices throughout the country all for the sake of “privacy”, then you need to get a clue.

As a result of this, Medicare has amassed an immense claims claims ithathas provided countless researchers with an invaluable source of longitudinal, diagnostic and price information that has been put to extremely good use in analyzing outcomes and utilization patterns. All this has been done without exposing a single Medicare beneficiary to invasion of privacy. How? By stripping all personally identifiable information out of files before they are made available to researchers. By suppressing small datasets that could identify individuals even with personal identifying information stripped out (such as an unusual diagnosis in a small-town hospital, for instance).

So as long as we can save some money, it’s OK to invade people’s privacy? Suppose we could save trillions if we tracked the medical records and spending habits of all citizens and eliminated those citizens who didn’t meet a certain threshold of usefulness for society. Does it follow logically that this would be a good thing to do?

Is “saving some money” always adequate justification for any policy we wish to implement? At what point does ethics matter to you, sir?

The ACLU has consistently objected to such “ID cards” as they pose a serious threat to the preservation of personal liberty and privacy. People like you, who make illogical arguments in favor of more government control, are the problem.

Also, if you don’t want the reform that’s there now, what DO you want? The status quo, in which 50 million Americans have no access to health care? In which we spend more per capita than any other industrialized country but are no healthier in the end? In which tens of millions more have coverage so meager that a single serious illness could send them into bankruptcy?

What do you propose instead? And don’t tell me it’s to let “private enterprise” work its magic. Private enterprise is what we have had all this time. And it isn’t working.