Also, since I obviously do not know you, and therefore could not vouch for the accuracy of your research or capabilities to do mathematical analysis, I cannot say I have been persuaded. However, I remain open to actual facts that can be backed up and am always open to changing my mind if someone gives me enough facts to do so. Suggesting we count claims adjuster and other salaries into profit is kind of a weird thing to do, so this does make me question your accounting skills. I get where you’re going if the officers of the company have inflated salaries, but the rest, not so much.

You also say “isn’t any profit made on the suffering of others, obscene?” I guess you could say that if you accept the premise that profit is being made off of suffering, which I don’t.

I AM being honest about my experiences – why would I not be? Let me know yours if you work in medical in Canada.

I am also a fellow Canadian and have worked in the medical system for several decades. Please be honest.

The Canadian system has universality, but everybody pays for it and that is O.K. if you have to wait 3 hrs. to be seen for a sore throat. It’s another matter when you are young with cancer and have to wait. You’re life is on the line. That’s the difference.

…I’ve been calling and writing my Congress Critters, but they are only interested in politics.

Look at some of the crap I get from them, Myth’s and facts email’s.

MYTH: Congress will not be forced to accept the public health insurance plan that they will force on everybody else. FACT: One thing Barack Obama and I want to do is to give Americans and small businesses the ability to buy into a plan like the one I have.”

Isn’t that amzing? And he confirms his own “myth” with his reply.

How far these Democrats have fallen.

My purpose in bringing up the Constitution was to point out that it does NOT allow for the federal government to provide anything except a national defense. They used the word PROMOTE versus the word provide for a reason: to “promote” means to ensure a structure by which all citizens’ interests can be pursued without favor of one group over another. It is not a mandate for the federal government to be a provider. Metaphorically, government is supposed to make the road rules but not drive any of the cars.

We have gotten so far away from this original concept that we don’t even recognize the constant tyranny of government intrusion. In this debate about health care, many people take it as a foregone conclusion that government should provide these things. Again, with this philosophy, why stop at health care? Food and shelter should be single payer, too. Why are we pretending there is any difference? There’s not, and if single payer is absurd in the case of food, it logically follows that it is absurd in the case of health care.

We do agree on the lobbyist issue. This goes back to the ‘promote the general welfare’–AS OPPOSED TO protecting the narrow interests of one group or class. Here we have blatant and deeply embedded problems. Why, why, why in the world would you trust any government that cannot resist the pull of special interest groups? Single payer health care would be a lobbyist’s dream–imagine having to concentrate your efforts in one place. I’m not sure where in your plan you think these guys are going to disappear. Single payer health care will only intensify this major problem.

Good questions:

Research I have done on the healthcare companies represented on the Fortune 500 over the past several years – including CIGNA, Humana, Aetna, United Heath Group, Wellpoint, etc., indicates that reported profits are always in the 2-10% range. this looks modest and does not raise too many questions. However, when you add in dividends, executive salaries, bonuses and stock options a different picture emerges. Also count in the over head involved in the hiring and maintenance of the cadres of ‘adjusters’, i.e., people hired with the specific task of finding ways to deny claims – and paid bonuses based on their success rate.
Well then, the actual profits diverted from actual healthcare rise to the 20-30% level.

You may choose to ignore these facts in the interest of ‘private enterprise’ but ask yourself this: isn’t any profit made on the suffering of others, obscene?

First, No current healthcare system anywhere is going to cover everything, all the time. The goal is to maximize coverage while minimizing costs. It is axiomatic that a publicaly funded non-profit healthcare service will serve more people for less money than a private for-profit system will. It is no secret that Americans pay far more for far less coverage than any of the industrial countries which have public healthcare – Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Canada, England, etc, etc.

Second, I made no reference to the constitution but since you bring it up “promote the general welfare” seems like a dandy rubric for public healthcare. General welfare would be server very well by public healthcare, both because it would serve more people and because it would remove the penalty of about 20% that American business suffers in competition with other industrialized countries because American business pays, in part, for healthcare that is paid by the public in those countries.

Third, I agree that lobbyists have far too much control over healthcare, after all they wrote Obama’s health insurance reform bill. I think that public healthcare would drastically reduce lobbyist influence on our healthcare system.

Last, we do have choice: we can choose to have a rational, reasonable healthcare system that maximizes the benefits for everyone or we can choose to let people whose only motivation is profits continue to control our healthcare system… and our lives.

Remember: you get whatever you choose.

What a shame (though not surprising) that BO couldn’t even ask to tap her brain about the healthcare issue. Oh, that reminds me of the joke about men not asking directions, just driving all over, getting lost and not getting to the destination – yeah, that’s BO. Couldn’t stoop to asking Hillary for a map!

It seems to me that any system is going to do some things better than others, so I wish that we could not just compare countries, but look further into what, within that country, works well and what doesn’t. In other words, a film that doesn’t just focus on the bad or just on the good, but that really looks at the whole issue and presents it fairly.

Day long wait to be seen by an emergency doctor.

Don’t believe this stuff John, it isn’t true.

and Canada that people pay up to 75% of their income for insurance?

Not true.