Which is why I think a significant part of the problem is lack of real and transparent competition among insurers. Many consumers, depending on their employer and/or the state where they live, have an artificially limited number of options.
Even if there was a universal mandate with no underwriting or exclusions allowed, if there was real and transparent competition you'd have a lot more efficient health insurance market than we have now, and you'd see much more incentive for better customer service and cost containment. Maybe we'd start seeing statistics for the percentage of claims that are denied, too, as part of the transparency.
That's not a magic bullet by itself -- but then, nothing in this debate is, and what we need to do is look at things which might not make all the difference by itself but might help a lot in the aggregate. And that might paradoxically mean increasing government control in some areas and adding free market reforms in other areas.
Absolutely.
And if we need to provide subsidies to the very poor--okay. But let's be reasonable: 60% of the people are not "very poor."
Regarding the "% of GDP we spend on medical care" issue: We're at the very high rate because we don't have a truly functional, efficient market for either health care or health insurance. There are only two ways to decrease the cost of health care (or anything else): Increase the supply or decrease the demand. Giving everyone access to "free" care will, unarguably, increase the demand for service. Going to a market-based approach may help moderate demand and also encourages greater supply (people will want to build rapid-care clinics, build hospitals, and study medicine if there is money to be made. We want this--it increases supply, keeps waiting times low, and moderates cost. They won't do these things if compensated at the Medicare reimbursement rate).
I want medical personnel to be smart, knowledgeable, and focused on the needs of the patient. That may not be possible at government-set rates.