This thread is dedicated to Americans who want to study the issues attendant to "health care reform" in the United States.

I firmly believe that we have a generational opportunity to effect massive and productive change in the U.S. health care industry - approximately 16% of the US economy. Obama is here with this subject material as his principal goal. He has Democratic control of both houses.

I respectfully request that foreigners continue to provide their thoughts on the relative merits of their own systems to existing threads dedicated to that subject. I suggest that Americans interested in positive change resist responding to input from people who do not understand our system or the substantive issues to be addressed. This is complex subject matter and difficult enough even for us to understand.

As to other disagreements - let loose - have at them. Still, "right versus left," I suggest, is again diversionary and best avoided.

Take your informed opinions to your representatives to your representatives and to the streets.


Here's what I think, rightly or wrongly, in whole or in part:

Single payer is not an option.

A yet to be defined "public option" is one of two components of true Reform. Destruction of the employment-based insurance option which now predominates as a Sacred Cow to powerful interests is the other component. We need at least one, and preferably both, or there will have been no true "reform."

There is an imperfect legislative proposal pending which could accomplish both of those goals. It is called the "Healthy Americans Act" (S. 334), or the Wyden-Bennett Health Reform Plan. Searching "Wyden-Bennett" will provide a wealth of information. It was introduced in January 2007 (S. 334) by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and re-introduced in February 2009 (S. 391), each time with over a dozen co-sponsors from both major parties


I believe the Democrats have avoiding confronting the employee benefits related industries and therefore have shifted this proposal to the side. The Republicans, for the same obvious reason, won't call them out on it.

In a July 1, 2009 interview, Obama said he agreed with "with '90 percent' of Wyden's thinking" but called HAA "radical" : The president said his discussions with Wyden are similar to those with people who advocate a single-payer system. In theory, those plans work, he said. "The problem is, we have evolved partly by accident into an employer-based system." A "radical restructuring" would meet "significant political resistance," Obama said, and "families who are currently relatively satisfied with their insurance but are worried about rising costs ... would get real nervous about a wholesale change."

I say we shouldn't allow "significant political resistance" to force us into a trillion dollar mistake that allows massive cost shifting, regressive taxation, and extraordinarily expensive efficiencies to continue.

I believe that any "reform" legislation that is passed without either a public option or an option to free employees and competitors and true innovators from employment-based coverage is not reform at all, but mere incrementalism not worthy of a "reform" title.

Here is a primer on Wyden-Bennett

Decide what YOU want Congress to do.

Good luck to us all.