Congress, Senate, and the President should waive all health care insurance until they pass health care reform--it shows solidarity with America.

I've watched the health care drama with close scrutiny.

As a working, middle class, American priced out of medical insurance, you can damn well bet I have an interest in reform.

As with most Americans, I think we need reform.

Insurance has failed in its appointed task: To spread the risk by covering as many people as possible. In fact, insurance companies reduce costly beneficiaries that cost them profits. In the short-term, their bottom line benefits, but it defeats the central premise of good insurance practice, viz., spreading the risk.

Policy makers have a conflict of interest. All of them... ALL OF THEM have coverage paid for with tax dollars. Their judgment is skewed since the sword of Damocles doesn't hang over their heads.

In order for the health care legislation to reach a suitable and equitable conclusion, I suggest a change for our policy makers.

All of them. Every last elected official with the power to vote for or against health care reform must waive any insurance coverage for themselves and for their dependents until every working American has access--real access-- to affordable health insurance.

I suspect that none of them will take my suggestion. That underscores the real point. None of them has a clue about the struggles and the fears that real Americans live with daily due to our current system of insurance and health care.

This isn't surprising though. My Congressman and Senator both come from money and have never done without, so they haven't a clue about the rest of us.

Health care rationing is a reality but Wall Street makes the decisions instead of doctors

When I read this article, I became quite angry because the subject says what we already know to be the case, viz.,. Insurance Companies get rid of costly customers for their bottom line.

Our current system violates every moral fiber of my being. The subject of the article finally awoke to the immorality of serving Wall Street over Main Street.

The best point made by the article: Health Care rationing is a reality.

The reality: Insurance Executives do the rationing now to mollify their Wall Street masters.

This begs the question: Who would you rather ration your health care? An executive whose primary interest is to shareholders?

OR

A government that is subject to the will of the electorate at least every couple of years?

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a government beholden to me and my fellow citizens over an executive beholden only to shareholders.

I leave you with this: What's the moral choice here? Leave the greedy in charge or let doctors, patients, and elected officials decide?

Employer-provided insurance hampers labor mobility.

Home ownership and employer-sponsored insurance may play a bigger role in unemployment than taxes or other alleged issues.

I've noted this for a time, that without some form of universal health coverage, people were tied to their jobs due to employer-provided insurance. When a health crisis hits, people can't just leave a job and lose their insurance, COBRA be damned.

Our system cements workers to their jobs when it might make better economic sense to move.

With the downturn in real estate, home owners are given a double-whammy with the loss of home value. They can't sell and they can't lose what they have sunk into their houses either.

The country may not be ready for this, but portable, universal health coverage would be a boon to labor mobility. People could move to where the jobs were instead of suffering with a job for the sake of the insurance and the house.

We need socialized health insurance

Slate reports on the economic incentives that hospitals have to shaft the poor.

The current problem with our health care system is thus: The system is designed around profitability. There's no profit in treating people who have little to no money.

Our system is also designed to reward doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies.

This begs the question: At whose expense?

Well, at the expense of those least capable of paying.

Our system is in dire need of overhaul. The doctors will fight it along with insurance companies and hospitals.

We have a moral obligation to treat everyone fairly instead of just those with the means to afford insurance or health care.

Personally, I think we should have a system that provides basic coverage for all, funded by government run insurance. This would allow better preventative care and reduce reliance of E.R. care by those without coverage or means.

The cost-benefit analysis bears this out when you compare the actual cost of care in countries with some form of socialized health insurance (not the same as socialized medicine).

The final dilemma is this: Is it moral to reward doctors, hospitals and insurance companies at the expense of the poor? Or, is it moral to treat everyone fairly?