Jay, do you really and truly want to open this can of worms in your blog?

If so, may I suggest that you start the 5 or 6 threads required to address the varied spects of the topic and that you hire 3 or 4 interns (immediately) to edit and filter the FLOOD of responses you will soon be getting?

Just trying to help. ;)

It is clear to me that what passes for a 'system" is woefully inadequate and that something needs to be done to remedy the weakness and shortfall.

Whether the plan currently being contemplated and debated will actually improve things remains to be seen (I have my doubts). The common theme I notice in the discussions on the topic is the notion that the 'plan" is somehow a static thing. It isn't and never will be.

Whatever is within this current draft and even if it is passed into law it will not be the end of the "tweaking" that will begin (in earnest) before the ink is dry on that law.

The regret I feel strongest is that all of the basic principles of this new model could have been begun sixteen years ago and we would (largely) be done with the tweaking by now.

As to the problem... the under and mal-insured may be a larger problem than the un-insured. These people are paying good money (or having it paid for them) for what they are led to believe is enough to "cover" them in the event of... It isn't until that event occurs that they find out what they really have.

If I had a magic wand?
1) de-couple from employment
2) standardize MINIMUM standards of coverage
3) eliminate the phrase "pre-existing condition"
4) create a 100% actuarial pool to cover the traumatic and catastrophic
(these four things represent a proper role and a reasonable limit to government involvement in a "plan")

5) recast HI to be like auto or homeowners with a high deductible
(and HSA's etc for those able to afford them)

and 6) stop looking for some other entity to pay for your common expenses.
Pay your own way out of your own pocket to whoever you choose for your care.

Works for me. But you know who this doesn't work for? The BIG health insurance companies who have their fingers in every corner of your life and the BIG employers who would rather not pay you the extra wages needed and even BIG government when costs and outlays are shifted to individuals

As constituted the president's health care plan is a massive income redistribution program.

On its face this whole argument that health care costs too much is misleading since the statistic used is per-capita health care spending and not the price for each individual treatment. Why should any individual care what the total industry revenue is for any product or service. Whether or not a bottle of soda is expensive is independent of the total revenues for Pepsi and Coca Cola.

Consumer choice is based on the price the individual sees. Yet not only does the president's plan not address this issue it goes even further to insulate costs from the individual.

What we have here is the perfect tool to bankrupt the economy. Hopefully there will be enough legislatures willing to place common sense ahead of ideology that this montrosity can be put out to pasture.

I have waited in vain to view comments and answers to several points. Who will pay for the care of those who health problems (and costs) are associated with illegal life styles? w=Who pays for the 15% of costs due to illegals? Who pays for care of the underground workers, drug dealers, etc?