Recent comments

I also do not like my chances of identifying 3 government enterprises that work well and that is a valid consideration. When I consider the alternative, however, I am forced to look at inurers and providers. We may disagree honestly as to whether the nightmare of dealing with a government bureaucrat could possibly be any darker than the nightmare of dealing with an insurance bureaucrat, but I am betting my life, literally, that we can both add. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that administering a single healthcare plan could possibly -possibly- cost more than is currently being spent to administer the hundreds of different plans offered by the dozens of carriers, irrespective of who the adminisrator of that single plan may be. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that when you replace all the profiteering ploys (approvals, coverage, billing, verbage, etc, ad nauseum which characterize the current system) with a single plan, that is, a single source of reference common to all, that there is any way that it could possibly -possibly- cost more than the hide-and-go-seek, deny-and-defend apparatus currently in place for the purpose of profiteering as much as administrating and administrating peculiarities which, by definition, would not exist were there only one single plan. There certainly must be some value to getting literally everyone on literally THE same page. Agreed: not thousands of pages of political favors. Estimates and representations vary as to how much could be saved, but certainly it must be agreeable to believe that there is potential for signicant savings in this area alone. How to get providers to abandon their business model in exchange for a sustainable model of responsible health care is aother part of the equation that we will never get to if we continue to split the hair of how much worse any one administrator for one plan could be than any insurance company is today.