I wasn't posting to correct your percent. I was posting to show that there were 46 million people without health care in 2007. I'm sure it's much higher now.

15% is last years number and is growing daily with the job losses. And when people do get new jobs they still won't likely be insured for some time. Also lots of companies are dropping their insurance programs and with the current cost of individual insurance plans most won't likely be replacing it. Also the number of insured people includes those that are already getting government based insurance.

Now let's look at 15% maybe that doesn't sound like much to you, but that is in the neighborhood of 46 million people. One in every 6 people you see on the street has no insurance. That's a LOT of people.

Excuse me 18, or 15 is no small percentage. That number is HUGE, if it were a small percentage then the cost would not be a problem. How about taking an 18% pay cut and then tell me how small a percentage that is.

agreed

You are missing the point, destroying a whole system for a small amout of people is not necessary..you don't have to re-invent the wheel, you have to figure a way to help those that are in need of it.
And I did take a 25% pay cut to prevent more people from being laid off and cutting costs, $60,000 worth of cuts, and I did it voluntarily.. When you bleed others like me and those that make even more, dry, who is going to pay for all these brilliant ideas???

And I took a 30% cut that grew to 50% and no insurance after I let everyone else go. So you should know your first mistake 18% is not small it's huge. And second you're making the assumption the current system works it doesn't and has not for a great many years. You're also working with the miss conception that the uninsured don't cost the rest of us anything now. That cost is huge also. And when you consider the uninsured don't get help till the cost of treating them is horribly massive instead of when it can be solved with a couple drugs you can see why the system is failing so many people.

Now let's look at another number. How many of those supposedly insured people are insured through one of those fake $20 a month discount plans? And how much of the tab do we have to pick up when through legal BS those companies refuse to pay. The cost to the American tax payer for uninsured (and even supposedly insured) citizens is already staggering.

Now you can see we need to fix those things rather than starting health care. But I live in the real world and we both know in the real world that's not going to happen. The only way we can stop the slow degredation of our health care system is to make major changes. I don't know how much I agree with the current plan, I suspect it will abused just as much as the current methods but what we have is not working.

Oops missed this part. One of the reasons while I hold some support for the current idea when I did not support previous ideas is this one does not gut the current system, it leaves it pretty much intact the only major losses should be to the companies that should not be allowed to be in business in the first place. The current offering adds another choice to what's available. If it were done right, and of course we know it won't, it would likely end up saving us (us=Americans in general) money. With that in mind I think its the best thing being offered to help a dying system.

Medicare and Medicaid only pay a small amount. when a provider is a preferred provider, they have to follow the contractual prices. if that is all they did, then they would have to cut back on staff, medicines, equiptment, etc.

there is no easy solution

I understand that the system is not perfect, but destroying it when other alternative ideas are out there is crazy. Retail clerks union charges minimal health care premiums and have great coverage for their employees, why can't we co-op these insurance plans to allow individuals to add to the group and benifit from low cost health care??

Two problems with your statement.
One those systems are increasing cost exponentially it was when I was told I had to accept a 20% increase in my premiums that I had to cancel insurance for my entire company (myself included).
Second that's very similar to what they are talking about doing. The current system remains but a government program that works through private insurance companies where the costs and profits can be strictly controlled. (please don't tell me you don't think the profit margins for some of the insurance companies out there isn't out of line.)

but how much should the government control PRIVATE healthcare???? it's not like Medicare or Medicaid

True and I do have issues there, but the health care industry is IMO getting out of hand simply because it can.

Do remember that no insurance company has to participate in the plan that the government wants to offer, and they won't have to meet the same standards for those they insure that are not going through the government. But what company wouldn't want a piece of the 46 million policies waiting to be written? They will likely do whatever they have to do to become efficient enough to pick up those huge numbers of subscribers.

I know people that don't have insurance. My cousin is close to losing her home because she helped pay for her uninsured son's surgery. If he didn't have that surgery, he would have died.

true but isn't it like anything else? if the demand goes down...prices go down to get more business or they go out of business???

I just see the government taking more and more control. Like the bail outs...

46 million plus is not a small amount.

Just imagine if half of them need to go to the ER or need to be hospitalized. We'll be paying for it anyway.

We are likely up to one in 5 people being uninsured so unless your a hermit who doesn't know more than 5 people well then you know someone who doesn't have insurance. As for your cousin, this is what most people like Del seem to miss. We as American will help pay one way or another in her case perhaps she'll get help from the current bank bail out, or she'll end up on some government assistance program after the loss of her home. And if she hadn't done what she did, well then we'd be paying benefits to his family after his death. There is no escaping the cost of uninsured persons. We all pay one way or another.

Health care flies around the rules of most businesses. The cost of NOT having insurance and/or NOT getting medical treatment is death... How much would you pay to NOT die?
The only way costs get driven down is if there is a cheaper competitor, in this case we're looking at it being the government. And again the one reason I do hold some support for the current idea is because even though it is the government controlling it the money and profits go to private enterprise. One of the problems we are facing in this country is that large corporations have discovered that it's cheaper to buy out a smaller competitor than to try to compete. It's rather obvious problem in the auto industry but the same problem exists throughout corporate America. Whose going to buy out the government?... besides China I mean. I do hate the idea of government stepping in especially since we all know once they do it will be hard to get them out. But I'm not liking the alternatives any better.

having SOME regulations on private healthcare is one thing....to keep monoploies down...but not to take over by the government. where does it stop?

What I am saying is that I do not support any intervention by the government and you and I both know that government taking over the healthcare industry is not the answer. It would be nice to have a plan that covers everyone, but that is not financially possible, unless you have a declining population and you maintain your tax base to support more government. Our government is so inefficient and when money is taken out of our pockets to give to those that need it, only 5 cents of every dollar reaches those that need it, you can throw billions and trillions of dollars at a problem and that won't make it go away..we have seent that already. When did medical care become a right, instead of a desire?? Now I am not without a heart, and would not want anyones brother to die from lack of treatment, but how much can we pay out and not collapse?? When the receivers of programs outweigh the taxpayers...who will cover the cost then??

I don't see this as being a take over since the industry will still be there in it's current form, and no one has to participate if the rules don't work in the business world. What Hillary wanted was a take over of the health care system that I could never support. Again I don't really like it either, it's just the lessor snake, to paraphrase what you like to say.