The Healthy Americans act is the best plan for healthcare reform

Your First Paragraph: Thank you for conceding the following factual points from the article that I rely upon which is at http://www.twincities.com... : "Lesson No. 1: A single-payer system would eliminate most U.S. coverage problems. Lessons No 2 and 3: Single-payer systems reduce duplicative administrative costs and can negotiate lower prices. Lesson No. 4: Single-payer plans can deliver the goods because their funding goes to services, not overhead. Lesson No. 5: Canadian health care delivery problems have nothing to do with our single-payer system and can be fixed by re-engineering for quality." Your "Sketchiness": You cite the following quote from your article: "everyone -- not just those who currently get insurance through their employer -- would get a generous standard deduction that they would use to buy insurance -- and keep the excess if they buy a less expensive policy" (Wyden)." I respond: A "generous standard deduction" is not a voucher. The former is valuable only if the individual has an adequate taxable income. But many people work at minimum wage, or low income jobs. They frequently pay no income taxes because they don't make enough. A new "generous standard deduction" will not give them money to buy private medical insurance. THEY MAKE TOO MUCH TO QUALIFY FOR THEIR COUNTY OR STATE MEDICAL INSURANCE ENTITLEMENT PLANS BUT NOT ENOUGH TO AFFORD THE PREMIUMS FOR A PRIVATE PLAN. THEY ARE THE 46 MILLION UNINSURED. You state: "A voucher system would preserve the current costly (administrative costs of all health insurance companies - is just one component) status quo." But how would a public option or single payer be any different?" Frankly, a public plan can serve as a price control. I have Medicare which pays X amount for Y procedure. But the provider may charge a private insurance company a higher price for Y procedure. Unlike United Healthcare, a government health plan agency will probably not pay $490 million to a retiring executive. You state: "A few years ago the CEO of United Health Care retired. His retirement package was $490 million! $490 Million! $490 MILLION! I hope my point is evident." Unfortunately, you have just laid out an exceptional argument for evolution. If we were intelligently designed, we would be way less greedy and we would be able to do the best for the company and the people, instead of what's best for the CEO. But the head of the public option or national health system would also be human, so I see no inherent benefit." I respond: See my preceding comment. United Healthcare is a private company governed by a board of directors and articles of incorporation, bi-laws, and policies . The board approves the compensation. The only external CHECK relative to EXCESSIVE EXPENSES are the shareholders. But public agencies have more CHECKS on their actions, such as: 1) employees must act according to PUBLIC laws and regulations; 2) they are subject to Politics, 3) they may run afoul of an investigative press or a investigative blogger like Matt Drudge; 4) and don't forget about vigilant tort lawyers who need lawsuits, etc. Your Second Argument: You Quote: "The Republicans agreed to require all individuals to have coverage and to provide subsidies where necessary to ensure that everyone can afford it. Most have agreed to require employers to contribute to the system and to pay workers wages equal to the amount the employer now contributes for health care." I respond: Group health insurance is a fringe benefit. Not all employers currently provide the benefit. They can't afford it. I know a young lady who works as a nanny for two sets of high income parents. She is paid an hourly rate with no benefits. She can't afford health insurance and earns too much to be eligible for the Ramsey county medical assistance. An employer (or those employing my nanny friend) reading your above quote would be wise NOW to not buy insurance for his employees. Regarding the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service, I agree that since the agencies are administered by human beings (who have flaws) they occasionally make mistakes. Citing one IRS error from your experience is anecdotal evidence and your argument is based on an over-generalization. Your Third Argument: My Response: We agree that both public and private bureaucrats are corruptible. I think that we disagree with respect to the potential CHECKS on their actions. I contend (above) that their are more potential checks on the public bureaucrat. Accordingly, I think that the potential adverse effects ( your school teacher situation) are less in the public sector. I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT FAR MORE PRIVATE EMPLOYEES HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS IN THIS RECESSION THAN HAVE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. SUMMATION: It is difficult for me to argue that the Healthy Americans Act is NOT the best plan because neither the Obama Administration nor the Congressional Democrats have decided upon a specific health reform bill (a bill sent out of the Senate/House conference committee) that is proposed for enactment into law by the Senate and House. I have nothing specific (coverage or costs) to base a claim of superiority upon. If I understand the HAA accurately, it provides the following: 1. High income employee with employer provided health insurance - He gets an enhanced standard health deduction even though he may not need it. 2. Low income uninsured employee - he gets a voucher to purchase insurance. 3. NO income uninsured person - he gets a voucher to purchase insurance. Employees 2 and 3 are receiving an entitlement ( I receive two entitlements, Social Security and Medicare - expensive entitlement programs that are running out of funding under current law) I think it is significant that you have not been able to cite an estimated total cost for the HAA. Finally, you have the burden of persuasion. I think that you needed to show certain elements of the HAA that were better than the comparable elements under either single payer or public option plans. But there is no such plan or plans to run a comparative analysis. Except the Canadian single payer plan. I wrote: "Here is the link to the article about the Canadian system that I'm relying upon: http://www.twincities.com...... I hope it works" You responded: "Your link did work this time. I will not deny any claims in the link because it was factual," I respectfully submit that your concession amounts to a concession that the FACTUAL Canadian system is superior to the SPECULATIVE Healthy Americans Act. Further, thus, you have not met your burden of persuasion. Finally, I respectfully suggest that before voting interested parties should read the articles cited by Abard and me. Abard's article http://www.washingtonpost.com... . Mine is at twincities. com just above. Both articles are brief. Abard, I've enjoyed our debate, which is my first. I didn't debate in high school or college. I was a jock in the former and I partied and chased girls in the latter institution. Thanks for taking it easy on an old fart. Tom