Without taking the time to research specifics of the Obama-proposed health care plan, I believe that about all it does is add a government sponsored health care plan that individuals and businesses can buy into, along with some type of mandates for individuals and businesses to purchase/provide insurance to themselves/their employees. Certain sized businesses are exempt, I believe, from the mandates (and penalties if they don't provide the insurance).

I want to throw this out there: 54% of health care is already paid by the federal government in our country. If the government provides a subsidized plan, that number is likely to go up. How high? I haven't heard any estimates. 70%? Is that too high of an estimate? Not sure.

One of the criticisms I've heard is that if the government provides a subsidized plan that private industry can't compete with, then private industry will simply stop providing the plans. (Heard that on one of the Sunday morning news talk shows, I believe.) To that I say, good. I've heard and read articles suggesting that health insurance isn't all that profitable anyway, and if they have to compete with a government plan, and can't, then maybe they shouldn't be in it anyway.

Health care is something that we all require. I've also heard it said that most families of normal means are one serious illness away from bankruptcy, even many of those with insurance. That's not a good thing; it's a BAD thing. It's UNDESIRABLE. It's WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.

When in Canada, I read their version of USA Today whenever it was delivered to my hotel door, or when I saw it in a coffee shop where we were for breakfast. I read a lot of letters about the Canadian single payer system, and NOT ONE of them was against it. NOT ONE LETTER suggested that they get rid of it in favor of something more like the American system. Health care just doesn't seem to stress Canadians out like it does us here. Maybe it's because I'm in a health care field, but I talk to people every day who are concerned about other health care issues, and they're all concerned about the expense. Yet they don't want to go without that extra test, the expensive imaging, the best drugs. They just don't really want to pay for it.

News for everyone: Technology COSTS money. In medicine, it doesn't save money. The newer, better tests are more expensive than the older, less helpful(diagnostically) tests. As technology improves, costs will likely go up.

More news for everyone: Doctors and health care personnel get paid, just like everyone else. Physicians deserve to make a good living, a very good living even. You can't cut reimbursements on procedures to physicians without affecting their standard of living. You can't pay them minimum wage, unless you want minimum wage quality people doing your diagnosis and treatment. I know that personally, I want the best, the brightest, when I go to a doctor. I want smart. I want someone on top of everything.

Where does this lead me? Well, I think the conclusion is that we need a single payer system, like Canada, with tort reform so that the first hundred grand or so of what the doctor charges doesn't have to go to pay for liability insurance. Maybe reimbursement rates don't have to go up so much, maybe they can even stay level, if those premiums come down into a reasonable range. After all, if you cut premiums by 50 grand a year, it's the same to the doctors as raising fees to provide that 50 grand of additional income. Without tort reform, we won't see physician charges go down, ever.

As I've posted before, I also think that there needs to be a paradigm shift in the mindset of the medical profession, and I guess that would include me, or my profession at least. Less entrepreneurial, more focus on care with less risk and solid reimbursement.

Just my opinions. I welcome comments...