Because that's what you've been, and are, all about.

I have never been in the FEHB plan (I was in the Congressional plan for two years more than 20 years ago)..but friends and colleagues who have been in both FEHB and private sector plans cite greater choice in FEHB at comparable premium prices. I currently have a choice from among three plans at varying premiums....feds in FEHB have 8-10 plans (I think) from which to chose.

I assume by independent plans, you mean plans in which an uninsured person purchases insurance on the open market, with no employer contribution. the biggest difference, particulary for workers in small business who dont provide insurance, would still be a shared cost with employer (but less for the employer than if he had to go to the independent market - a matter of risk size and diversity). The other difference, independent plans are able to cherry pick their risks. YOu have a pre-existing condition or approaching medicare eligibility in a few years...forget it, no independent plan will touch you.

I think it was part of the Clinton plan..but the whole plan was so disjointed and poorly presented in the first months of the administration, with Hillary as as the point person, that they were completely unprepared for and underestimated the backlash and just fucked it up.

Instead, Clinton focused on uninsured children of working class families and created the SCHIP program, which covered 6 million kids....funding through a dedicated tax (cigarette tax)

The other issue is the screwed up regulatory environment at the state level, where in many states, small employers cannot join together to create a shared risk pool.

Why didnt Bush/Republicans consider it in the six years when they had control? You would have to ask a Republican.

The fact is, they didnt seriously consider any health care reform as costs continued to go up and access to go down. Hell, Bush twice vetoed SCHIP expansion to cover more kids of working families.

We dont need another government run program like Medicare.

But a government administered public/private program, primarily for small businesses and those uninsured who are above the Medicaid eligibility, as well as making it an option for those with employer-based plans, will provide more choice and affordability through greater competition with the existing private (independent) plans.

It would provide an incentive for those private insurance companies to be more efficient and more responsive to consumers. They are not hurting for profits...the top 5-10 private health care providers made $10+ billion in profits last year. Profits are determined in part (and in some states) based on a percentage of premiums....the higher the premiums, the greater the profit.

They have a choke-hold on the current system and it is a money making machine that they control in near absolute terms.....to their interests, not the health care consumers.

added:
What is your alternative for the 45+ million uninsured and the rising costs and fewer choices for those who are insured?

I have no alternatives. Thats primarily why I asked the questions.
followup - Would it be easier or more efficient to expand medicare/caid qualifications to include more of the uninsured instead of creating another plan? I wonder if this program, whatever it will be, will have all independent administration and employees. Seems like it would be a duplication of responsibilities. By expanding one of the existing plans it would seem to be more efficient and less costly.

Just a though - - - or replace one/both with this new plan.

Isn't there a way to change how the Gov't contracts for care and/or prescriptions. IIRC they were/are restricted in the negotiating process in some way that seemed insane to me at the time.

I don't worry to much about that any more. "So you heard what you expected to hear, and assumed my intent."

A few thoughts on the healthcare situation

"There is a place with unlimited funds called health insurance Company that will take care of everything."

Is this a joke? In what fantasy world does this guy live? Has he never heard of deductibles and co-pays and limits? My employer pays the majority of my insurance premium, but not all, and my employer pays zero of my family's. I pay all of that.

And what's the betting that when you most need the payout they'll find a reason not to do so?

I'm in the same boat.

Which countries are these where the employer pays for housing/rent?

Dunno - I found the comments after reading an article on "the Economist" site. I never said I agreed with them.

Just realized I didn't link the article... that would have helped.

The future of health-care reform

Wait times to see doctor are getting longer

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...aittimes_N.htm

Surveys are still the weakest form of statistical measure. The article was interesting anyway.

Nah PFA statistics are much weaker.

From the WSJ

I don't think we should be "forced to" carry insurance. This is beginning to look bad. Apparently there are no tangible details of their "plan" and they are floating this out there with little to no transparency. That or they have no real plan.

I am still struggling with exactly how we are going to increase the number of insured by around 50 million or 15%-20% while decreasing costs and not having the long lines or rationed care that other countries have.
Unless we are going to get taxed out the ass, this isn't logically feasible.

Lack of a specific plan aside, I'm curious: do you think it is fair that drivers are forced to carry auto insurance?

Yes I do. Do you equate the two somehow?