Single Payer is best health care option

Americans are addicted to the idea of the Nanny Corporation. Big business solves our problems and we just get pushed along for the ride. We have been taught if you help your neighbor you might have less for yourself and somehow that morphs into some form of scary Socialism. We pretend it's about freedom, but it's really about money.

Personally, I have absolutely no idea why people would not want to support a system that would guarantee their family decent health coverage no matter their occupation and protect them against medical bankruptcy. Americans are slow learners. Another closely related topic is pensions vs. the stupidity of 401k's. Many people in America are trying to get government jobs (teachers, civil servant clerks, postal etc) because they feel it's the only way to obtain health and retirement benefits. My state has had record applications for openings for gov't service because people are seeing that the open market might mean more salary but little security.

Capitalism can't work if people are afraid to open businesses because their family will lose their health insurance or they will not be able to afford their premiums if the business owner gets sick. Other major free markets know this and offer coverage for all - the USA is too stubborn to admit this truth and will end up as a nation of nothing but a few rich CEO's and a mass of Walmart toadies.

I worked for a time in a government run nursing home. Those jobs were greatly coveted. The employees knew that full time jobs with full benefits meant security. (Many government politicos and officials know that too.)
People are so used to private health insurance that to question whether we need it or not seems unamerican.

Can't find a way to edit the above so I'll just add this: Full time "government" jobs, such as the jobs at my county nursing home, meant security and so they were highly coveted. You think that all those running for government offices don't know government jobs mean security?

The public option was originally modeled after the Massachusetts health care plan which mandated that people buy health insurance from private companies and offered to help pay for those who couldn't afford it. -Very good for the private insurance industry.

“...Massachusetts’ law mandates that uninsured individuals must purchase private insurance or pay a fine. The law established a new state agency to ensure that affordable plans were available; offered low income residents subsidies to help them buy coverage; and expanded Medicaid coverage for the very poor. (Immigrants are mostly excluded from these subsidized programs.) Moneys that previously funded free care for the
uninsured were shifted to the new insurance program, along with revenues from new fines on employers who fail to offer health benefits to their workers. In addition, the federal government provided extra funds for the program’s first two years.
Starting January 1, 2008 Massachusetts residents face fines if they cannot offer proof of insurance. Yet as of December 1, 2007 only 37% of the 657,000 uninsured had gained coverage under the new program. These individuals often feel well served by the reform in that they now have health insurance. However, 79% of these newly insured individuals are very poor people enrolled in Medicaid or similar free plans. Virtually all of them were
previously eligible for completely free care funded by the state, but face co-payments under the new plan. In effect, public funds for care of the poor that previously flowed directly to hospitals and clinics now flow through insurers with their higher administrative costs.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/doctors_give_massach.php

“...While the new health insurance improved access to care for some residents, many low-income patients who previously received completely free care under the state’s old free care program now face co-payments, premiums and deductibles that stop them from getting needed care.
In addition, cuts to safety-net providers have reduced health resources available to the state’s remaining uninsured, as well as to others who rely on safety-net providers for services in short supply in the private sector. These safety-net services include emergency room care, chronic mental health care, and primary care. The net effect of this expensive reform on access to care is at best modest, and for some patients, negative.
By mandating that uninsured residents purchase private health insurance, the law reinforced the economic and political power of health insurance firms. Thus, the reform augments the already high administrative costs of health care. Moreover, the agency that administers the new law (the “Connector”) adds an extra 4 to 5 percentage points to the already high overhead of private health insurance policies."

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/02/18/massachusetts-plan-is-the-wrong-model-for-the-us/