I don't think there is ever a 'good' time to institute change. Either there's a recession....or you're in 'recovery'...or the economy is strong and you wuoldn't want anything to upset that...There is always an argument to wait.

There are far too many people struggling with medical bills, or inadequate/no insurance. There are far too many people unable to get insurance because of existing medical conditions. It needs a solution. Though a recession may not be the best time to institute change, it's also the time it's likely to be most needed, as that's when people are losing jobs and employer based insurance. It's during a recession that the gaps show most keenly in people's lives.

That's how car insurance works.If the government ran something at a profit, it should either spin it off to private industry or decrease its budget. One of the reasons for a government to run something is if the profit motive is insufficient (e.g. pure science) or corrupting (e.g. the military).

If there were a way to set up private health insurance in such a way that the profit motive incentivized low premiums and paying claims, maybe that could work. Unfortunately, it's the other way round. Is there even a theoretical way for health insurance companies to be run at a profit without incentivizing the denial of claims?

All I can think of are from the other direction, placing more restrictions on the various reasons insurance companies give for denials, such as "preexisting conditions" or "experimental". But as long as the incentive is still for denial, they'd just make up new classifications.

But providing insurance for all removes the incentive, the reward, for being rich. ;)

There is always a good time to make a positive change. This change doesn't appear initially to be one though. It appears that we are going to get saddled with increasing costs and taxes, not decreasing. Yes,we will cover more people, but the rush to get another major plan done is disconcerting. This is huge and for the administration to come out and put a deadline on when this "has to be done" is foolish to me. If you think it should be done right then that should be the goal, not just getting something done by a certain date for what appears to be political reasons.
Thats BS.
Also, there are some very basic issues not being addressed - just off the cuff - Will medicare and/or medicaid be replaced, eliminated or modified?

Exactly how are we increasing the # of insured while decreasing costs SPECIFICALLY.
How are we going to provide services without rationing increase demand by as much as 25% while not increasing the supply of providers.

HM - With car insurance, which the Gov't DOES NOT PROVIDE, we are each assessed on our own risks/history. There are plenty of those who still drive without.

"If I am not paying for it what is the incentive for me to change my unhealthy behaviors?" If I am obese, diabetic or have clogged arteries because of my diet - Who is being penalized with the increased cost for my health care costs? Not me if I'm not paying for it.

It's been 15 years since the last time anyone talked about fixing health care in the US. If this doesn't get done now, while the Obama horse is still charging out of the gate, it simply isn't going to get done during his term. His administration, like all administrations, will get bogged down and run out of steam. Most likely, after Obama, the pendulum will swing back to the Republicans, who won't bring up health care reform. So it won't come up again until the Democrat after that. Perhaps in 16 years. Basically, it's a situation where we fix it now, or we wait another 16 years before bringing it up again. The question is, if you really believe there are huge problems with the US health care system, would you rather rush to fix them now, or let those problems exist for the next 16 years and be facing the same difficult prospect of fixing it then? That's the choice the country faces.

The Republicans can't do health care reform, like Clinton can't do welfare reform.

That was in response to the question of mandating coverage to private industry, which is part of the plan. Having a public option in addition to that is a different issue. Having single payer instead is another different issue.People who drive without are breaking the law, unless there's some exception I don't know about.

no, do it right or don't do it at all. The last time we rushed to get something done ...well we are still finding BILLIONS in waste from that one.

That's your opinion, and that's fine. But you are choosing to have illegal immigrants use the ER when they get a sore throat and we all foot the bill for that in increased medical costs. Why would you choose that?

Good point, but the republican haven't addressed health care reform, and show no signs of doing so on their own.

lol - I wouldn't - they would be outta here if it were up to me. They'd get one shot at that and be gone when they were done. The next major project comparable to the Hoover Dam, would be a wall on our southern border - think of the employment opportunity there... and the potential long term jobs it would create.

The less of them draining our system and denying our citizens of care , the better. Perhaps we'd have a few more employed citizens too. Just a thought.

Medicare prescription drug plan notwithstanding, I guess.

I would have to guess that this would be the lesser of two evils.

Sorry missed this post earlier - Yes, that would be a benefit if it actually got enforced, which I, unfortunately, don't think it will.

None of these have been addressed - still. I would think these would be at the top of the list when considering something of this magnitude. I wonder why that is.

Yet it happens every single day.

This is an interesting exchange with Kathleen Sebelius...

I'm not sure if you're asking us or the government to address these issues, but I can answer the second one for you: once someone is insured, even if it's against their will initially, they can now go to a normal family doctor for their sore throat instead of the ER. This will save huge amounts of money right off the bat, because a family clinic simply does not cost as much to run as a hospital. Hospital resources are wasted on non-emergency treatments, and that's a cost that the rest of us subsidize one way or another. What's more, when someone is insured, they are more likely to go in for preventive care and early checkups of symptoms, and thus may never need the emergency surgery they would have required if the disease sat until it could no longer be ignored. We all save the cost of that surgery, too.

... hypothetically speaking of course.

And I am asking for opinions here because many times we all look at things from different viewpoints and come up with interesting ideas.
I am also asking the Gov't and have written my "representatives" already.
I am still waiting for a reply.