You seem to be stuck on a notion that no one is proposing. Its not national health CARE that is under discussion. It is national health INSURANCE. Blame goes to Verdon for misrepresenting my statement in his original post.

As for outsourcing, well, that is an issue that is so yesterday. Do you have any idea how many government servies are out-sourced today? (personal aside - I work for a private firm that contracts with the NIH. 20 years ago I would have been employed directly by the NIH to do my job).

Besides, we are not talking here about moving governemnt jobs out to the private sector - rather simply NOT moving private jobs into the federal system.

Corruption is a constant in life, and is not in any way less prevelant in the private sector than the public. And politicians will say anything in a campaign, so I dont think you concerns in that regard count for much.

No Ray, none of that need happen. You could outsource all the administration to the existing private insurance infrastructure. Pool the risk, guarantee a policy to all, but let the private sector compete to provide the service.

In that case, why nationalize health care at all? If you use existing private infrastructure to provide a service, what justification can there be for government involvement? You want to guarantee a policy to all, but how do we decide which policy would be considered correct out of the various policies that are offered and how would you fund them? The best approach would be to use federal dollars to purchase private insurance policies for those who can't afford it (the outsourcing you describe), but then we run into the problem of possible corruption in the selection of companies and policies provided. I can imagine the political infighting that would occur under that scenario!

Can't you hear the campaign commercials already? "Senator X has a daughter that's married to a clerk that works for the health insurance company that issued the policy for her cousins son at tax payers expense! That's proof of the corruption that permeates the office of Senator X! Vote for me and I'll make sure that this type of corruption does not occur!"

Also, how do you overcome the resistance of federal employees to allow outsourcing jobs that the the employees and their unions would want to keep with in the government? Do you really believe that the federal employees would allow outsourcing? I doubt that!

How about the people that work for insurance companies? What would happen to them, their retirements and their investments? Perhaps they will get jobs with the now massive federal health insurance program? Would that mean that these new employees will receive union wages and benefits? Wouldn't that mean that the labor costs will rise dramatically? Wouldn't that increase the costs directly? Wouldn't that mean a dramatic rise in taxes? You bet it wold! Suddenly, it seems that the cost of national health insurance doesn't seem so small does it?

As a start, I would propose a $1000 deductible policy as the most any employer could offer. This would make sharper, and less wasteful, medical care customers.

In the second example, he takes home $890 dollars, and has health insurance which is funded out of the $110 he pays in taxes.

In both cases he has health insurance. In one case he takes home $810 (for use in WalMart), in the other he takes home $890 for such use. And you claim that the latter case will depress consumption.

Please help this poor biologist to understand your point.

And yet, obviously, labor isn't terribly competitive, given wage stagnation.

Regardless, I think the better argument is that the employer-based system has other costs--the problems with switching jobs, for ex.