That's the whole idea. It's called self-insurance. The entire populace in the pool. The most rational way to do it is have all health care workers to be paid employees instead of some sort of entrepreneur. You would get more of the altruist type and less of the moneygrubber, god-I'm-rich type. It should be done by the government because it's more rational and efficient that way. Our economy is on the brink already because of the inequitable distribution of wealth in this country. If the rich paid higher taxes to fund health care, it would help solve both problems.

You are correct that the majority of actual heath care cost are NOT insurance based but the dollars paid for actual health care services, in two main categories; health care workers and health care facility and hardware cost (cost to run a hospital, cost of a CT scaner, etc...).

One way to reduce the health care workers cost is to do as you say; No independent workers but force all doctors, nurses, etc... to work for the government. Of course if these people are not paid enough there will not be enough of these workers and this is where the draft comes in. The government would then force people to be health care workers.

Note that being a health care worker or doctor isn't a 'fun' job and money is a reason people put up with the stress and do the necesary hard work. You assume there will be enough altruist types to provide America with the necessary number of health care workers. What to you base that assumption on? Look at how materialistic America is? Look at the amount of debt most average Americans have (poor and middle class), you assume they would be willing to do the work necessary to be a health care worker at sub-standard wages?

No it would take a draft.

I don't believe that original post was talking about reducing the pay to doctors to the point of menial labor. Except perhaps in San Francisco or Manhatten, you can have a pretty good life on $80,000 a year. Working for the man might even be attractive to doctors, if the other part of the deal was that the government covered the doctor for malpractice.

That having been said, I don't think it necesary or even desirable to make all the doctors government employees.

What we need it to rethink the problem from the beginning: No American should ever be denied medical care simply because they lack insurance. No American should be denied affordable insurance because they have a pre-existing condition. (Just imagine that your sister was a cancer survivor who was therefore "uninsurable".) Your family never should have to face the stress of bankruptcy, losing their home and retirement, as a result of someone getting seriously ill.

If you can agree with all that, then we have a choice: Either everyone can have insurance or we can have the government make the payments.

Instead of getting bills that imply you may owe a fortune (if your insurance company doesn't come up with the cash) you could be getting a statement that explains things, like what was done to you and when your next appointment is.

I like the idea of doctors and hospitals competing with each other on the basis of their excellence. And that means that medical providers may sometime fail, as a business, just like other businesses do.

Love it love it love it! Please write your Congressperson and tell them about this winning formula: "Let's make all doctors work for the government so we get less moneygrubbing doctors, and pay for it by raising taxes." I think that the Dems should repeat that line, over and over and over again.

Yes. That is the answer. Tax the shit out of the rich. Youknow the folks making over $250,000.

Chamsicks-I thought maybe your post was satirical,so I read your other posts. Congrats-you are a proud Democrat by your own words-you hate the US, believe in socialism, make up statements about repubs and then put them in quotes (FYI-quotes means someone else actually said a statement not that you made something up and put it in the mouth of someone you don't like), and as in this post,see nothing untoward that others (docs in this case) should sacrifice to give you more of what you want. I hope you post more often as you are the very essence of the modern democratic party.

"[I]t will cost more for government, much less for people."

And who, pray tell, is the government? From where does its money come? Is this really a serious comment?

Put another way (as blood squirts out of one's eyes), perhaps more accessible to someone capable of such a comment: "Soylent Green is people! The government is people!"