On Q1, you blame private insurers for Medicare's problems… which was going insolvent well before 2003. The legislation, BY GOV'T, then contributed to the problem. You can blame private insurers for interest money and gaming the system, but gov't was still the instrument used.

On Q2, you ignore the CBO estimates that repudiate your assertions of cost savings.

On Q3, catastrophic illness and cost is a problem and should be addressed specifically without slapping an untested, unproven system in place that would directly or indirectly impact every single person in the U.S. The administration has waffled on both the care and insurance reforms… arguing for the former one day and the latter then next. What is it they want? Without a final bill, how do we know? Considering the administration wanted votes taken before anything could be absorbed, they now lack the credibility to sell changes to the system.

Q4, we all agree then that health care is rationed in some way. It's basic economics of supply/demand. How do insurance companies make profit? By being better than the competition. Just as it may be disingenuous to think there are no problems with insurance companies, it is also naive and disingenuous to claim not-for-profit gov't would provide better and cheaper care. With no profit incentive to compete, how would government care manage costs? As with other gov't programs, it wouldn't. So how would it compete? Through legislation as it has done with Medicare, yet many require supplemental coverage to Medicare and it is still insolvent.

Q5, proves point again that government is a source of problems and should not be trusted to handle something this important.

Q6, Why implement a massive, costly system to “compete” when you could generate greater competition by allowing sales across state lines? Gov't doesn't manage Medicare like any company manages health care/insurance. Gov't just dictates payments and offerings. It would have no idea how to implement the superstructure needed as a business.

Q7, I think the laws of supply and demand will show that gov't control of costs will reduce the supply of competent health professionals. A reduced supply will lead to greater costs and rationing… unless we plan to force people into certain career choices for the good of the people.

Q8, We agree that tort reform is needed, so why hasn't it been on the table?

Q9, With such an intertwined economy, I think the number crunchers and accountant types should have a strong say in the feasibility of the proposals… and so far, the CBO says the legislation being debated are monsters.

Q10, Your facts have been debunked and the Commonwealth Fund is an advocate of single payer, so the source is not credible for multiple reasons. If it is that dire, why do polls show most American's like their health care and why is Obama paining himself to say to us that if we like it, it won't change? Also, the 47 million number has been clarified many times and the true uninsured number isn't that large.

Pre-existing conditions and catastrophic illness appear to be good starting points for reform. If we look at market approaches to those and address them, the uninsured numbers will start to come down. If we look at solutions for specific things (like tort reform), then see the impact to the system, I think it would be much better than a massive, unproven overhaul with gov't calling the shots. Given the partisanship, special interest monies, and corruption that exists and has existed in gov't (evidenced by scandals galore), why should we trust government? Respectfully.

This is not a new issue. It isn't going to go away. You can stick your
head in the sand and claim that the evil government is…well, evil
for wanting to take care of people, but frankly, this is part of what
government SHOULD do.

As for your fiscal responsibility/tax concerns, were you this
concerned when George Bush pushed through the biggest expansion to
Medicare in history with NO WAY TO PAY FOR IT? Were you this concerned
when he started a senseless war with Iraq that has cost countless
lives, will put a huge burden on the VA to care for the injured and
traumatized, and drove up the national debt by a few trillion?

Probably not. Because for some weird disconnected reason, war seems to
be something we can dig into our pockets and pay for, like ice cream
in a depression, but addressing the very real, very serious
disparities in our health care system seem to be less than even half a
priority for that same group.

I really appreciate these responses to your questions.

One commenter says President Obama has not kept his word and specifically refers to the stimulus. I'm not sure what he is referring to but can't think of a way the President was untruthful except in the fact that he wanted bipartisan support and only got 3 GOP votes. He did include GOP ideas which ultimately weakened the bill.

One person can't pass a bill; therefore, a bill will change and there will be parts the original person might have wanted that are removed or things added. That is the way our system works.

I think, though, that we should be finding the aspects of this plan with the most certain benefit/cost ratio and implement those.