But you wouldnâ??t know about such things of course cause you are a fan of ideology instead of reality.

Dammit another irony meter broken.

Note To Self: Turn off Irony Meter prior to reading ken's comments.

Virtually every American over age 65 is covered by Medicare as primary 'insurance' for medical care. Any doctor that treats seniors must, unless they treat only the extremely wealthy, accept Medicare otherwise they will have no patients.

And it is thanks to Medicare that our seniors get more not less medical care today than they did before it was implemented. But you wouldn't know about such things of course cause you are a fan of ideology instead of reality.

You are also, typical for a conservator, confused. You mistake Medicare for Medicaid, which covers the poor and disabled and is a state program, and which some doctors do not accept.

Hmm. Leaving the existing tax breaks in place has a cost as well, though it isn't visible. Overconsumption for those most able to afford it (tax breaks on very generous packages) is the most obvious.

Ken seems to be a fan of static scoring, as he can see no farther than his nose, if that far. Why do so many doctors refuse to take Medicare if it's so great? If its phiolosophy were applied to the entire country would the populace get more or less health care? My guess is less, as evidenced by the other countries that have socialized medicine.

Not mention the things that do happen because of the awful profits that ken despises. Like the drug companies that make money off of other peoples' suffering. Without profits, there will be fewer drugs. The example applies equally well to other products and services in the medical industry.

I'd agree, but currently we aren't paying tax dollars to get health care. My employer is paying that for me for tax purposes. It is a subtle difference, but an important one considering that actually taxing those benefits would have important consequences.

Ken,

Subsequent to Anderson's comment I've googled around on the topic and I think that 3% number is pure unadulterated Bravo Sierra hurled by those who favor government provided heatlh care. From what I've read so far, an apples-to-apples comparison between Medicare admin costs and private admin. costs is very problematic since the government isn't mandated to keep track of them in the same manner private industry is required.

So, you'll pardon me if I don't buy your arguments without some better evidence than has been so far presented.

Aetna announced today that its projected payout for the year rose to 80% from its previously projected payout of 79%. The payout is the amount of each dollar that goes to pay medical costs.

On this news the price of Aetna shares fell steeply and closed with a 17% loss for the day.

That 20 cents on the dollar that Aetna does not pay out to hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc it pays instead to:

1) Insurance agents in the form of commissions.

2) An army of claims adjusters whose job is to argue with patients and hospitals in order to deny payments.

3) An army of lawyers whose job it is to defend Aetna for not paying out claims.

4) A whole host of lobbiest to bribe law makers with money in exchange for favorable laws that would give Aetna them an undeserved economic advantage.

5) Administraters and exectutive officers.

6) Debt payments

7) 4 cents a year annual dividend to shareholders for a yield, at today's closing price, of .1% (one tenth of one percent)

This system of private health insurance being the major source for medical care is screwing both the public and, as you can see, the shareholders get nothing of value out of it either.

It is time to provide Medicare, whose administrative costs are less than 3%, to everyone.

Then if folks want to buy supplemental insurance to what Medicare provides, let them.

Regarding healthalicious, I think you're getting up on poor sentence structure on his part. He's saying people can use their own money better, not really tax dollars (they won't be tax dollars once they are returned to their owners).

Having said that, I'm not confident that these portability schemes are worthy. It would be far simpler for the government to get rid of the deductability of employer-based health care and use some of the extra revenue to offer more subsidies for those who lose their coverage due to the change. That alone would remove a huge distortion that causes people to overconsume healthcare.

So long as you have an activist government, and we do thanks to both Republicans and Democrats, your third way wont work the way you think it will.

Steve, what about the reports that Medicareâ??s admin costs are actually less (proportionately) than the private sectorâ??s?

I haven't seen such reports, and I'd be curious as to how such costs are measured.

This would provide the portability of health insurance coverage. In theory, it would be cost neutral to employers as they would pay the employees what they pay now. Tax incentives or credits might be a part of this (e.g. tax deductability or tax credits to help cover individual health insurance for the poor). The libertarian side of the republican party would like the idea of individuals making the choices using their own money. The small government side of the GOP would be glad that it helps to solve some of the present problems without adding a new government program. The national security side of the government wouldn't care other than a government run health care would compete for defense dollars. The religious side of the GOP would not be opposed to it, though they might push for some faith based initiative funding to help fill in the cracks.

Also, the US health system is very much broken to emergency health care, but that does not mean the whole system is broken. As to fixing that aspect, has an idea like shielding hospitals from lawsuits if they refuse health care to individuals who have outstanding bills and don't show a means of paying when they check in. Yes there would be some heart wrenching examples of people in terrible circumstances, but I suspect that a large portion of voters would support such a measure.

I don't buy that 35% argument for a minute. The idea that simply because our (hugely bureaucratic government) is going to take things over is going to reduce the size of the bureaucracy strikes me as pissing on one's self and believing it is rain.

Anderson,

I'm opposed to that as it will likely be enormously wasteful and we run the risk of the government containing costs via limiting access to health care. I've blogged on this before.

(Bonus points for not using "nanny state" in your answer.)