So I have a lot of hope. I have hope that everyone will decide that health care is something that they should have. I have hope that, like me and the many other salaried, exempt status employees of the world who are paying for their health care, mightily may I add, those who do not have health care will get it. But I also hope that it does not come in the form of additional tax dollars to me, my friends, family, etc. I think that there is a solution. And I do believe that there is one that is bipartisan in nature. But there are many aspects to the Obama plan that I am not a fan of, nor will I support. I believe that if you take the control of the health care system out of the hands of the private sector and leave it to be controlled by the government, you are setting yourself up for a lose-lose situation. Just as this article lays out:
"What's wrong with Obama's health care plan
In his speech today before the American Medical Association conference in Chicago, President Obama said any health care reform plan should include a "public option"--a government-run program for anyone unhappy with the options from private insurers. He claimed critics who warn that this will lead to a "single-payer" system run by the government "are not telling the truth." But it's the president who is not being fully honest about this proposal.
The argument for the public option is that the government is more efficient than the private sector, which will come as news to anyone who has ever dealt with the bureaucracy. Supposedly government health programs have lower administrative overhead. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest those efficiencies are mythical or exaggerated. Such savings will be even harder to attain if the public provider has to compete for customers, as Medicare and Medicaid don't.
If the public option isn't cheaper, it will face serious problems. Take high-risk patients. If it accepts them on more generous terms than private insurers, while getting the same premiums as other patients pay, it will lose money. So the government would have to choose between letting the public provider fail and bailing it it out.
The latter would tilt the playing field and thus defeat the purpose of promoting fair competition. But if the public provider avoids high-risk patients-- as private insurers do--what is the point of a public option?
In the end, there's good reason to fear that a public option will get special subsidies, allowing it to outcompete private companies that lack a key to the Treasury. Obama said that's a false fear. But he did nothing to dispel it."
The idea that the government will be able to run a more efficient system than the experts is absurd. Do there need to be more regulations as far as cost control, yes. But a full scale takeover of services is not necessary. Just ask anyone from Canada who is able to get services for there pets in 2-3 days, while they wait 2-3 weeks for their doctors appt. book to open. Not to mention the offset of increased tax payments to throw even more salt in that open wound they are waiting to get looked at.