The Healthy Americans act is the best plan for healthcare reform

Your link did work this time. I will not deny any claims in the link because it was factual, however I will say that the United States is currently in 2 wars, we have a huge army reserve, our national debt is much higher than that of Canada, and we have many more people. We also have to take into account many variables, such as illegal immigration, smoking, drinking, and air quality. I feel that we need to fix up our current socialized systems before we add any others. 1) Sketchiness: Well, if you carefully read the article, you will find this sentence, "The Democrats among us accepted an end to the tax-free treatment of employer-sponsored health insurance; instead, 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'm sure the government would find a balance between what saves Americans, as well as America, the most money. "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? "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. 2) Second argument: "Could an employer decide to discontinue his group health plan and tell his employees to apply for a government voucher? " In the article, it says, "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. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that this framework is the only one thus far that bends the health-care cost curve down and makes it possible for the new system to pay for itself" (Wyden). In other words, Bill would give you exactly the same pay system he currently gives you, but instead of giving you health benefits, he pays you what he would be paying the insurance company, and you use the voucher to choose your company, and if your chosen insurance company is more expensive than the voucher provides for, you can use the extra money from work to pay it off. "Regarding efficient administration, the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service are able to accomplish their missions relative, potentially, to the whole population. " I once got a letter from the IRS saying that I owed them $10,000. I owed no such money. Is that effecient? So what if I got a lobotomy when I asked to have an appendectomy? And the IRS is not a fair comparison anyway, as they collect much more money than they need to operate. 3) Third argument: "For thirty years I practice law. I interacted with government (and private corporate) bureaucrats every day. This is my opinion: Generally, most bureaucrats are honest, competent, and just want to do their job and stay out of trouble. Some are incompetent. And some are corrupt. The bureaucrat, WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT OR A PRIVATE CORPORATION, has a certain mentality. All such bureaucrats are potentially corruptible, INCLUDING THE BUREAUCRATS WHO WILL ADMINISTER THE HAA. " You are correct that they are corruptable. But with a private option, the most likely consequence of a corrupt bureaucrat would be that it would turn into a monopoly by using tax money to superfund it, so they can cut rates to crazy lows. With single payer, a corrupt bureaucrat could essentially cut off health insurance to everyone. Now compare that to the HAA. With a corrupted bureaucrat, it seems that the worst they could do is cut all funds, essentially bringing us back to our current system. It's bad, but much better than the other two. Also, when the economy is hurting, everything is impacted, and often the easiest way to provide aid is to cut funds from socialized areas. For example, I know many teachers, as well as students in Oregon public schools. Now our governor has some budget issues to deal with, and so he decides that some government employees should go a few days without pay. He committed a few days, and guess which government employees he told to work without pay. That's right, the teachers. I'm not sure why, although he is the oldest governor in the nation, maybe he doesn't care about the future, I'm not sure. But my point is, something similar could happen to healthcare. I don't want the government to decide how much coverage I get, I want to decide how much coverage to get, but I also want those less fortunate to have the ability to have a decision, and that decision should allow them to have decent health coverage from the company of their choosing. This has been an excellent debate, and I would like to thank my opponent, Dogparktom, for providing such interesting arguments. I know you have a choice in which healthcare provider to use, and I think that choice should cost you less!