"Real Universal Health Care"

On a moral scale, one could say that the poor should not be paying much, much more than the rich for their health. In fact, this was the case in the 1950's -- lowest quintile paid the least.

To me, the "fair" outcome would be that sick people pay more in health care expenses than healthy people, regardless of relative wealth.  Comparisons to the supposed halcyon days of the 1950's are specious for a number of reasons - we are more urban now, we have a different diet, we have more sedentary and less active professions, we are better able to diagnose and treat disease (leading to higher health care costs, since before people would just die, which is cheaper); etc., etc.  All of these things are intertwined with health care expenses.  Do you really want to go back to the 1950's?  Then get rid of the MRI's, the pharmaceuticals, the desk jobs, and break out the penicillin, the manual labor jobs, and the rural living.  I'm sure if we did that then our health care expenses would go down.  Is this what you really want?  (Oh and no internet.  Sorry.)

On a national security scale, people who are sick or immune compromised (be that from gingivitis or heart disease) are more likely to get sick from contagious diseases -- and without proper treatment they may make others sick as well. Someone who doesn't visit the doctor will NOT be our Patient Zero,  as they will have fallen through the cracks. We can't afford to not track people using the CDC -- one person who refuses to go to the doctor could be our Typhoid Mary.

So what are you going to do about it?  Force people to go to the doctor?  Some people have religious objections, but even disregarding those cases, you are illustrating precisely one gigantic danger of state-run health care: when the state pays the bills, it then believes it has the right to tell you the terms by which you will receive health care.  Mandatory preventative care?  Is this what you envision?  That is simply not compatible with a free society.

Also, I refuse to classify all of health care as a "national security issue".  Me needing a liver transplant after years of drinking beer is not a "national security issue".  When conservatives try to frame every pet conservative issue in terms of "national security" in order to better justify it, it was wrong; it's wrong when liberals do the same thing with their pet liberal issues.

As health care is a leading cause of bankruptcy,

This is going to sound harsh, but it's true: for the most part, people who go bankrupt over health care expenditures have not been good stewards of their finances to begin with.  Doctors and hospitals are willing to negotiate payment plans, and if you can't keep up with the payments, it means that you are already swimming in a pool of debt regardless of the doctor bills.  If you want to reduce health care related bankruptcy, why not ask people generally to live within their means, so that if a medical disaster occurs, they are financially prepared for it?

many of these people -- who wind up in emergency rooms across the country - do not actually pay for the costs of their negligence (or lack of a job). This causes many hospitals, particularly in poor areas, to be inundated by people -- leading in the short term to choked emergency rooms, and in the long term to hospital bankrutpcy.

Why not make them pay?  I'm all about people paying legitimate debts.  And if you are worried about hospitals in poor areas becoming inundated by people, why do you think state-run health care would alleviate that problem?

Finally, on a cost-savigns scale, we stand to gain up to 6% of our GDP from efficency savings by switching to a "single-payer" model. America consistently has the most expensive medical plans in the world, and it rates far from the top in terms of how good our health care is.

This efficiency savings argument is bogus for a number of reasons.  First, private insurance companies compete against one another (which is good), but these expenditures aren't directly related to health care costs, so they are counted as an "inefficiency".  Second, private insurance companies seek and reimburse doctors who are actually competent at their jobs, and place those in their PPO/HMO networks.  This is also counted as an "inefficiency" since money is spent on something other than drugs and scalpels.  On the other hand, government reimbursements, such as with Medicare, are required by law to reimburse anyone who submits a claim, regardless of the relative competency of the doctor.

But really that's just besides the point.  How much is your liberty worth?  Apparently it's only worth 6% to you.  Quite frankly I am less concerned about the system as a whole, and way  more concerned about individuals and their liberty.

Acinphx, I am not wedded to this particular plan.  The overall point, though, is that we must avoid the pitfalls associated with state-run health care, and something like a direct subsidy (or tax credit, or something) is IMO the best way to do it.  As far as the "uninsurable" go, if liberals insist that every person must have health insurance, then people who are uninsurable in a private market become de facto wards of the state.

Skayne, did you even read what I wrote?  Whether single-payer would "broaden my choices" is not the issue.  The issue is the loss of liberty and the very real dangers associated with state-run health care.  I mean really, do you want the same government which spied on its own citizens (and still does, BTW) to be in total and complete charge of your health care?  Doesn't that creep you out even just a little bit?

Also I must have missed the part where I defended the status quo.  If you don't want to deal with evil health insurance companies, then don't.  I'm not the one who wants to force health insurance on to you whether you want it or not.  I want you to be in charge of your health decisions, as long as I too am in charge of my own health decisions.

Furthermore I'm not hostile towards anyone making a profit off of me.  Or off of you, for that matter.  There's nothing obscene or immoral with people making a profit in health care.

Skayne,

If you hate insurance companies so much, why don't you choose not to do business with them?  I'm willing to let you live your life however you want.  You, on the other hand, can't seem to leave me alone - you want to force me to have health insurance whether I want it or not.  Why is that?

Medical decisions will remain between patients and their personal physicians,

How do you know?  I understand this is what you want to be the case.  But if people complain now about insurance companies meddling in the doctor-patient relationship, why do I have any reason to expect that in a single-payer world, the government-as-insurer won't be meddling in the doctor-patient relationship?

Moreover, he's Obama, not Bush.

Currently, we have Obama.  But the next evil George Bush is lurking around the corner.  What will happen to the single-payer health care paradise when he becomes president?

Determining which procedures will be covered will be big battles at the state level.

(1) Why will the battle take place at the state level?  In fact I would really doubt that there will be battles at the state level, because the usual arguments that liberals make against federalism will come into play: if the federal government lets states decide, then there will be (according to them) a "race to the bottom".  (2) Why does there need to be a battle in the first place?

It will probably be determined by a health board.

(1) Why should anyone's health care coverage be determined by a health board? (2) How can you be comfortable with your health care decisions being made by a government health board, when we have heard for the past 8 years how George Bush "politicized science" and put politics ahead of sound scientific decisions?  Those who wish to politicize science are still out there, you know.  They will naturally gravitate to these types of health boards.  And - I know this will come as a shock to you - there are those on the left who wish to politicize science as well.  Why do we have to subject our health care to these types of political battles?

More expensive supplemental insurance would cover what the board does not and that includes controversial procedures, including abortion.

How do you know abortion won't be covered?  Actually there is good reason to believe that abortion WILL be covered - after all in the last attempt, in 1994, Congress' plan did include public funding for abortions.  And we have an even more liberal Congress and president now.

As for Republicans pulling the plug, well, I don't worry about Social Security other than it going broke rather than Republican defunding it. And since abortion probably won't be paid by the public (other than emergency procedures), and if health care was defunded by Republicans, I doubt abortion would be any less available.

First, that is a curious confession about Social Security.  I guess all those campaign ads run by Democrats stating "Republicans will cut off old people and throw them into the streets" were a bunch of lies after all.  Moreover, you miss the larger point:  Do you really want your health care decisions to be subject to the results of the next election?  I mean, even though Obama wasn't my choice, I still get to do things I like, such as drink beer and eat cheeseburgers.  Why should health care be different?

Your third question is another red herring. Europeans, Canadians and Japanese smoke like chimneys, drink like fish and eat like goats. All in a universal health system. We'll pay for our bad habits, unless we're rediscovering our Puritan nature.

I find it hard to believe that you can make this claim even now, when we are still in the throes of Bailout Mania.  Were you not around when Congress was suddenly up in arms about AIG bonuses?  The bonuses were entirely defensible but people were outraged anyway (to the point of issuing death threats) because it was perceived that the bonus recipients were unjustly profiting at taxpayer expense.  Did you not take notice of the tea parties?  They were motivated, in part, by Obama's housing plan which suggested that individuals who made poor choices with their mortgages should be bailed out by those who played by the rules.  (In fact that was the motivation of Santelli's rant which started the whole thing.)  I don't know how Europeans can reconcile just giving away precious organ transplants to chronic smokers, drinkers and sloths and not think that there is something unjust about it, but current events in this country suggest that people here won't stand for it.  We never really lost our Puritan nature.

• ~22,000 Americans die annually from uninsurance.

This study you cite is fascinating, in that it assumes its conclusion.  It cites 20-30 year old data which suggests that there is a 25% higher mortality risk associated with lack of insurance, and then proceeds to "demonstrate" that more people die when they lack insurance than when they have insurance.  Well duh!  This "study" is worthless.

American business operate at a competitive disadvantage because of our overly expensive health care burden.

So what you are really advocating for here is corporate welfare.  You want government to pick up the tab for health insurance, when, according to liberals, companies have an obligation to provide health insurance.  Why should government relieve companies of their burden?