@EddyFree:
We did, thank you! Santa found his way to the homes of all of my family.
Glad to hear that you also support education.
Not enough jobs is always a concern. As far as paying "enough to exclude an individual from government "entitlement programs"", refer back to our previous agreement on the value of education. Because you chose to drop out of high school, in my opinion, does not mean that society has to pay you $15 per hour to flip burgers at McDonald's. Point - by preparing yourself with education and/or trade skills, you expand the available job market for yourself and the amount of money you can earn.
Which is why bundled payments will not work. In my opinion, you will have the good doctors leaving the profession, to go into some other area where they can make more money. What we will be left with are the doctors who either do not have the drive to be the best they can be or those that cannot find anything else. And, of course, you will have a few who are truly passionate about the professions and would do it for free, just to be able to do what they love. But, I fear, these will be few and far between.
Agreed. I am not all that familiar with how this works either. I know just about enough to be dangerous!
I think we are agreeing here. Mistakes in medicine CAN have a high cost. But, as we have seen, so can mistakes by airline pilots, ships captains, and even auto mechanics. Unfortunately, until we find something to replace the human, there is not much we can do to stop all mistakes. I really do not know how we can limit litigation. I don't. I think at some point we may just have to say that a person is doing their best and we have to live with that. I believe that in cases of gross negligence, there may be a need for litigation. But, expecting perfection from an imperfect being, such as a human, is folly. It cannot be.
Yes, it has. However, as you know, once a particular session of Congress ends, all bills not yet passed die and, if there is interest, must be re-introduced in the next session. And the procedure starts over again. And, obviously, the only plan competing with the ACA was the Boehner plan. The third plan was introduced and died in 1993.

@niceguy:

Not sure where the $15 McDonalds thing came from...I said "NUMBER of available jobs that pay enough to exclude", not "EVERY available job should pay enough to exclude"...If I have 30 people in line for a job, but only have 18 jobs available, what becomes of the other 12 people? And then of those 18 jobs, what if 8 of them are low wage jobs?

As for bundled payments and insurance in general, wouldn't Doctors always have the CHOICE to go the ultimate true market route and accept cash only?...Having a passion for a profession doesn't mean one would give services for free, it means they wouldn't be PRIMARILY motivated by money...In my opinion, we have too many young "pre-med" students who want to be Doctors simply because of the potential compensation, not that they care for the craft...Many end up being poor quality Doctors, every patient becomes a dollar sign to them, they drive up costs for the devoted Doctors, and eventually attorneys end up loving them for it...

So do you think the Boehner plan was the best plan at this time? What major industry groups supported it? Would you take it to the American people and say this is the best plan to reform healthcare?

@EddyFree:
The point I was trying to make is that the more education and training you have, the more jobs you qualify for, and, hence, the better your chances of getting a job with a good compensation package. And the more education and skills you have, the greater the compensation you can command. What I was trying to say was that, if the only job you qualify for is working at McDonald's, we should not have to increase your pay at that job to afford you a "living wage". If you don't like the compensation, go find a job that pays more. So, in your example, the other 12 people can go to another job, because they have a variety of skills and/or training. And, if 8 of the jobs are low wage jobs, don't take it. Take your skills and training and go find a better job.
Let's be honest. We all work to make money and earn a living. We do the particular job we do because we like it. Their are some who work a job because it is the only job they can find, true. But, hopefully, these people are continuing to look for jobs that they like and, when they find one, the move to it. I feel bad for people that invest one quarter of their lives (40 hours a week out of a total of 168 hours in a week), doing something that they despise, for whatever reason. As for doctors that are in it for the potential compensation, that may be what motivates them to start down the road, but, I believe that the rigors to get there will weed out those who don't have some level of passion for it. They will have endured four years of college, three years of medical school, five years of residency, and created hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, just to get in a position to START to make money. And, in an open and free-market system, they will be under constant pressure to improve because if they don't, and get the reputation as a marginal doctor, their patient count will drop, affecting their income - which defeats the reason they started down the road in the first place.
No, I don't agree with all of Boehner's plan. Just as I do not agree with all of the ACA. As I mentioned to you before, there are parts of the ACA that I like, some parts that were not in Boehner's plan.In general, what I don't like about ACA is that it tries to regulate everything. As I said before, there are many things that cannot be legislated - religion, morals, and guarantees of success. You should have the right to NOT have insurance, the right to charge whatever you wish for a particular service, and the right to fail. And you should have the responsibility to accept the consequences of your choices. I believe that everyone should have the right to do whatever it is that they want to do, so long as what they want to do does not negatively impact others - who also have the right to do what THEY want to do. The only exception to this rule is the preservation of human life. Everyone has the responsibility to do whatever they can to preserve human life.One of the thoughts that I have is, as I understand it, if you do not have health insurance, you will be assessed a tax (or fine). How will that be collected? With 47% of Americans not paying taxes, how does that fine get collected? Will they just mail in a check? What about the tens of thousands of people who live under bridges or in shelters, or are illegal aliens - all of whom, I am quite sure - never file a tax return? How do we collect the fine from them? And, since they are in violation of the law by not having health insurance, do we refuse to treat them at the hospital or clinic? Do we treat them then through them in jail for not paying the fine? Do we treat them then deport them? It appears to me that this could well become a "hidden" middle class tax increase because those that are at the very bottom of the income scale will not have insurance, yet will still require services. And, as such, the funding will come up short of the need, and we are right back to where we started. So middle income America, who dutifully get their insurance and pay their taxes, will still be carrying the weight of those who do not follow the law.There are just so many problems with this legislation.

@niceguy:
Regardless of the improvements in skill-set, there would still be 12 people without work...As I said, when there are more quality jobs than there are people looking for work I will gladly label the unemployed as "freeloaders" and join you in being bitter about my tax dollars going to provide them with basic needs...

I don't think you can reform something as big as Healthcare without regulations...

What about AUTO insurance here in Texas, should we have the right not to have it? Texas is politically a conservative state, why are they mandating this on us? I'm a good driver, why should I have to "buy-in"?

As far as I know, the fine will be incremental yearly and be handled through your income taxes(extra payment or reduced refund)...People who don't make enough income to qualify to pay/file income tax most likely will qualify for medicaid/medicare which is qualifying insurance and therefore no fine...

@EddyFree:Some regulations, but not completely regulated.
Because, as I said, you can do what you want so long as it does not affect others. You do not have to have any automobile insurance on damages to you or damages to your vehicle. Texas only mandates coverage's on your car for damages to others. Damage to your car and medical insurance for you and your occupants does not have to be covered. "Texas law requires people who drive in Texas to pay for the accidents they cause. Most drivers do this by buying auto liability insurance. Liability insurance pays to repair or replace the other driver’s car and pays other people’s medical expenses when you are at fault in an accident. It doesn’t pay to repair or replace your car or for your injuries." Source
This does not address the illegal alien issue - of which there are more than 12 million in the U.S., who require services. And do you really think that all the homeless, downtrodden people are going to run in and sign up for Medicaid? If so, why have they not done it yet? If handled through income tax forms, and considering that 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 31 million Americans—or 10 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006. (latest year I could find) Source. If you add the 31 million outside the tax system to the 12+ million illegal aliens, you get over 43 million people who are outside the tax system. Granted, some percentage of these people will already be enrolled in Medicaid. I do not know if it is a high percentage or a low percentage, but I can guarantee you that it is not 100%. So, do we now hire more bureaucrats to contact all of them to make sure that they have signed up for Medicaid?I guess my basic point is that you cannot pass laws to control actions. You can pass laws that define limits and specify the consequences for exceeding those limits, but you cannot make people do what they do not want to do. We have had laws in this country against murder, rape, burglary, theft, etc. for hundreds of years. Has that stopped these acts? Not where I live. Do people pay a price for committing these acts? I believe most of them do. But, crime still occurs. I think that looking at crime is a good analogy for what I have said throughout this thread. People choose to commit crimes. I truly doubt that there is anyone in America that does not know that there are consequences to robbing a bank or killing someone. If someone robs a bank, what do they do? They RUN so they don't get caught. They don't go next door and get a sandwich. They know there is a consequence. Yet they choose to do it anyway. And society makes sure that those caught and convicted suffer the consequences. I think that we need to have more people endure the consequences of bad choices, in all areas. I think that, just as in crime, knowing that you will face consequences of poor choices, will lead to less poor choices.I am not unsympathetic, nor do I believe that no one deserves a second chance or a chance to make up for bad choices. And, I feel that we have an obligation to help people help themselves to correct a bad choice or get a second chance. What I do not believe is that by making a bad choice, you get to have everything made right by someone else. To illustrate, after Hurricane Katrina, the news did a story on delays in getting food and water to people in the Gulfport, MS. area. Federal aid was slow to get there and many people were surviving on private charitable donations of food. They interviewed a young woman, who had a baby on her hip, and she said "I don't know what we would do without these private donations. I guess we would just starve." I felt so badly for this woman because I realized that society had allowed her to be raised to believe that every time there is a problem, there should be someone there to solve it. There was no impetus to help herself. Had that been me, I would have fashioned a fishing line and tried to catch fish out of the Gulf; or started walking to a place where there was food and shelter; SOMETHING. I would not have sat there an allowed me or my child to starve without doing something. I try hard not to knock something down unless I have something that I think is better to replace it. To me, the solution is to work to find a way to increase the availability of healthcare coverage that is earned and paid for as part of a compensation package through an employer. That way, the 93% of Americans who are working, would be getting coverage - and not on the taxpayers dime. That's only 1% less than the projection of the ACA - and no cost to the taxpayers! Then, perhaps, we address the other 7% through Medicaid or similar programs.

Niceguy, you are making way too much sense. Thanks to you both for the informational back and forth.

Removed By Request

@niceguy:

I understand how it works and who it covers...But why should I be forced to buy auto insurance? I'm a good driver, if I get into a wreck that's my fault, why can't I just pay for it out of my pocket?

"Illegal aliens"(aka undocumented immigrants) are exempt...So are those with "incomes below the threshold for filing taxes" which would include the homeless...Here's more info:
www.obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-mandate-exemption-penalty.phpThe two points I'll make here is that the law is called the Affordable Care Act for a reason, it isn't the "Everyone Gets Insurance Act." The aim is to reduce medical costs for everyone, one aspect of that is through widespread insurance coverage, but it's not the only method...The other point is that when it comes to treating "illegals" or the "downtrodden", this country has a status in the world to live up to, can you imagine the human rights propaganda a North Korea, China, or others with poor human rights records would use against us if this care was denied/restricted? How much is that status worth?

I think it's interesting that Doctors who make mistakes are "imperfect beings" and we should live with that while those listed above should "suffer the consequences." I'm not saying I'm a big fan of crime either...

Was it society that conditioned her? Did you ever think that maybe she's not like YOU? Maybe she doesn't have the skill-set you have? Maybe she's not as intuitive and resourceful as you? Maybe in her youth, she didn't have access to the same developmental experiences you had? I'd be willing to bet that I can find several people(even "well-off" ones) who I can drop into the woods and they wouldn't know what to do...Or, maybe she just had confidence in her country..."To believe that every time there is a problem, there should be someone there to solve it"
Isn't this the principle of religious prayer?

What if we just eliminate insurance from the picture...Imagine that from now on, it's CASH ONLY(maybe even credit) for all medical expenses...Employers pay nothing, taxpayers pay nothing....As true as the market can get...What would that look like?

@EddyFree:
Oh, you absolutely can pay for it out of your own pocket and not have insurance. It is called "Self-Insured". All you have to do is prove to the State that you have sufficient resources to cover the minimum amount of damage that the insurance covers - $30,000/$60,000/$25,000, and have the resources to insure that these funds will always be available. Many, many larger companies (including the one I work for) are self-insured when it comes to liability coverage. All the State is doing is making sure that, if you have an accident and are at fault, there is some level of money available to compensate the other party(ies).
You are right. I does not mean everyone gets insurance, just more people - and at the governments expense. And, I have no problem treating the "undocumented" and "downtrodden". We do it now. I am just saying that a significant portion of the population are outside of the current system and nothing changes under the new system.
I did not say that doctors should not suffer the consequences. I said that they should put limits on the consequences - just as we do not enforce the death penalty for people who run stop signs, or rob a bank. The consequences should be commensurate with the error. Perhaps, if we had a system that made the type of errors and the number of errors each doctor committed public, the public would enforce the consequences by not choosing to go to a doctor with a high error rate. Again, as I said before, this is a tough one. You are trying to keep costs low by avoiding unnecessary tests, but holding a multimillion dollar "hammer" (lawsuit) over their heads.
No, society did not condition her. Her environment conditioned her and society allowed it to happen. I am quite sure she is not like me. I am quite sure that she does not have the same life experiences I have had. But, the instinct to survive is a basic instinct. In fact, I believe that most sociologists claim that is the strongest instinct within humans. And I would believe that she did not have "...access to the same developmental experiences you had." That is what I mean by being conditioned by her environment, as I was conditioned by mine. She was raised, I believe from my interpretation of her quote, to think that problems were not hers to solve. I was raised to believe that ALL of my problems are primarily mine. It is certainly nice to have help solving problems, but, if there is no help, then get to it. That is why I was taught what I was taught, encouraged to prepare academically, etc. My guess is, she was not. And that is what I mean by society allowed it to happen. Yes, there are thousands of people that, if dropped into a situation like she was in would not know what to do. But, would they just sit down and starve to death? What I am saying is that she didn't imply that she was even going to try to help herself. As for having confidence in her country - to do what? Bail her out when she won't try for herself? Or does she pitch in and help others - who, in turn, help her? As for religious prayer - quite simply the answer is: No! The Apostle Paul said "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”Paul's second Letter to the Thessalonians, Chapter 3, Verse 10. Why? As an example, if you asked me to help you move a piece of furniture, but then just watched me as I moved the furniture for you, I would not actually be helping you, I would be doing it for you. In ancient Israel the land-owners were told not to harvest out to the very edge of the field. They were to leave a little bit for the poor to come glean, or harvest to feed themselves. The principle is that it was a way to provide for the poor, but the poor still had to work to feed themselves. If you read the book of Ruth, you see that she went and gleaned grain in Boaz's field to feed herself and her mother-in-law.To summarize, God nor I expect you to be successful every time. But I (can't speak for God here!) expect you to TRY every time. I am a big fan of giving a hand up, but not so hot on giving a hand out. I don't know. I am smart and educated, but not that smart and not that educated. But I suspect we would all take several quantum leaps backward, because people (including doctors) work to earn a living. If you cannot earn a living as a doctor, you will go to something else. However, as a creative and motivated society, we may well form "medical co-ops" where a community would dedicate a facility to healthcare, employ their own doctor, purchase their own equipment, and every member of the community would contribute a set amount to the co-op each month to cover expenses.

@niceguy:

Yes, there is a provision to allow the wealthy to "self-insure"(It's a conservative($$$) state, what would one expect?)...However, the vast majority of the population has to purchase insurance...So the question still stands, why would the conservative state force me to buy insurance, thus eliminating my choice to pay per incident?

With the goal of bringing down medical costs for everyone thus reducing Government expenditure in the future compared to what it would have been without the reforms...And a large chunk of those "more people" will now be contributing also...

I'm sure they can't apply internal U.S. laws to those who aren't U.S. citizens...With respect to criminal law and crimes committed by foreigners, those would be covered under International laws...I think this is more an issue to be handled by IMMIGRATION REFORM...I'd say if Congress would stop wasting valuable time on things they know won't happen(like "repeal Obamacare" over and over and over again), maybe they can get something done like Immigration Reform...

Hey...Let's not bring "Jim Adler" into this!!

What was the question the news reporter asked her? Could it be that she said this "tongue-in-cheek"? If she said "I would kill for a slice of pizza right now" would you consider her a potential murderer?

No...To help her out during a major natural disaster...

The prayer comment was more a philosophical as opposed to theological one...I'd like to stay out of the bible if possible as it contains verses that cover almost all viewpoints and I don't think the potential exchanges would be constructive...

My how times change because in modern Israel, they are plowing WAY over the edge into disputed territory all the time...

A better question is what would today's healthcare system look like if there never was a medical insurance industry in the first place?

@EddyFree:
Because the state wants to protect me from you! As I said before, anyone should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not adversely effect others. The state is just making sure that, if you hit me, or my house, or my car, etc., that there is money available, from you to compensate me. And, the state, on some level, is protecting you by giving you a means to compensate me without having to sell you house, your cars, etc., to pay me what you owe me. You can be self insured, if you have the resources to pay for what you do. And you can pay for your damages out of your own pocket to avoid having a claim put against your policy.I really do not understand what the "It's a conservative($$$) state)" statement has to do with anything. Even New York and Massachusetts, arguably the two most liberal states in the Union, have automobile liability requirements. New York Reference and Massachusetts Reference. And I am not sure what implication you are trying to make when you associate conservative states with money. When you look up the 10 wealthiest states HERE and compare then with the 10 most liberal states HERE you will see that Massachusetts, Delaware, Connecticut and New York are on both lists, and that all the wealthiest states but one (Alaska) went blue in the most recent national election!

As I said before in this thread, "It is not clear what specific policies the federal government can adopt to generate fundamental changes in the health system; that is, it is not clear what specific policies would translate the potential for significant cost savings into reality." (Source: Congressional Budget Office report "Health Costs and the Federal Budget"; May 28, 2010). So, according to the CBO, the ACA will not achieve this goal of "bringing down medical costs for everyone thus reducing Government expenditure in the future compared to what it would have been without the reforms". So, we have more people insured, at OUR expense! And the expense is just as great as it was before, or greater!
I am not sure what you are saying here. It does not matter what nationality you are, when you are in the U.S., you live by U.S. laws. So, yes, internal U.S. laws apply to those who are not U.S. citizens. The only "sort of" exception are registered international diplomats, who cannot be prosecuted under U.S. law. The worst that can happen is they are expelled from the country and forbidden from re-entering. But, unless you are a registered diplomat, you live by U.S. internal laws. "With respect to criminal law and crimes committed by foreigners, those would be covered under International laws." Really? You really believe this? Heck, the U.S. has executed foreign nationals for murder. Texas did it in 2012! You think all the convicted drug smugglers in U.S. jails are U.S. citizens? Wow. You better read your news a little closer. "In the United States, the federal courts have recognized an important mechanism for acquiring jurisdiction over foreign defendants known as the effects doctrine. The effects doctrine is an off-shoot of the territorial principle. Briefly, the effects doctrine says that if the effects of extraterritorial behavior or crimes adversely affect commerce or harm citizens within the United States, then jurisdiction in a U.S. court is permissible."Source
LOL!!
I really do not know what question was asked. It was edited out of the piece. And, of course she would not be a potential murderer.
And if that fails, as it did in this case, - - what?
Fine with me. But you brought it up!
This is another debate for another thread.
Not at all like it looks today!

@niceguy:
I'm just trying to figure out why you are against having to buy Medical Insurance on the principle that you should have a choice, but don't mind having no choice when it comes to Auto Insurance(unless you are well-off and can do the self-insure strategy which most can't)...
Has nothing to do with state wealth or states that have auto liability requirements, more about having provisions for a small group(with $$$) to have an alternative to paying premiums that a larger group must pay...
Yes, we've been here before as that basically says "we don't know what can be done." Did they happen to say what their projections would be if nothing was attempted?
What I'm trying to say is I'm assuming there must be a legal reason they chose to exclude(or maybe couldn't include) "undocumented immigrants",who aren't U.S. citizens, from the law...Perhaps due to conflicts with other existing laws?....I don't have the answer here...My guess would be that they chose to exclude them to discourage illegal immigration for the purpose of getting medical benefits...
Please elaborate....Did they help her out or how did it fail?
Of course, but do you think it would be better off being closer to true market based than insurance's risk pools?

@EddyFree:Because medical insurance covers you. Auto liability insurance covers me! That way, when I go out to drive when I want and where I want, and you are out driving when and where you want, I have the confidence that, if you damage my vehicle, you have the resources available to compensate me for the damages you do. You do not have to by auto insurance to cover you (collision), and you should have the right to not buy medical insurance to cover you. However, you must also be willing to accept the consequences of your decision. If you do not have medical insurance and get sick, you stay sick. If you do not have collision coverage on your car, you walk!Do the wealthy have a different way of doing things? Sure. Do they have certain other advantages that the "rank and file" Americans do not? Yep. That is why most everyone wants to be wealthy - or at least wealthier. Why do millions of Americans spend tens of millions of dollars each week on the lottery? To win money and donate it to charity? I doubt it. They want to become wealthy - and have some of the advantages that come with wealth. When your boss comes to you and says "I want to give you a raise", do you say "No. I do not deserve a raise for doing the same thing I was doing yesterday and last week." I really doubt it! We all want more money.As I have said before, money (wealth) and power are strong motivators for the human animal. We all want to be in that "elite" group. That is why the free market system works so well.Not that I read. But I highly doubt that they did because: 1) the CBO is not in the business of creating or recommending legislation, just evaluating it; and 2) could you imagine the uproar if the CBO came out with a plan that would work? All the Democrats that rammed the ACA through would look like fools for passing legislation that will not work and not accepting the CBO plan that would. The Democratic leadership would never let that come out. I don't know why they were excluded either, but maybe it is because, in a legal sense, illegal aliens do not exist in our legal system. And lawmakers knew better than to include those outside the law into their legislation. The failures of FEMA to promptly deliver aid to those effected by Hurricane Katrina are well documented. And, in the absence of government assistance, private donations were supporting these people. However, her implication was that, if the private donations ended, which they could because private groups are not mandated to do this type of thing, there would be nothing for her to fall back on and she would starve. However, it is my belief that her current problem was HERS. It would certainly be great if there were others - private or governmental - to help, but, the condition she was in was her problem. I do not believe that she saw it that way.I am not sure that I am understanding your question, but I will take a stab at answering. America has a free market system for healthcare development and delivery. This system is, by far, the best system in the world. No other country has a healthcare system as advanced and thorough as the U.S. The competition for profits has driven medical advances that were not even able to be conceived of forty years ago. But, as with any consumer product, the higher the quality, the higher the cost. Better car = more money. Better house = more money. Better clothes = more money.And "risk pools", as I understand them, are just tools that insurance companies use to quantify and manage their costs of providing coverage.
So, I guess the answer is "we need both". The real problem in this country is not the healthcare system, it is how the healthcare is made available to the populous. And the ACA is going about it in the wrong way. They are trying to mandate the cost control through regulation and legislation. And as you have already agreed previously in this thread, there are most likely a hoard of lawyers out there trying to figure out how to beat the system. What Congress needs to do is work within the free market system. Create competition that drives efficiency and cost savings. We need the doctors and other healthcare providers to want to become more efficient and drive down their own costs - rather than hiring lawyers to find ways around the system. What we have now is a law that tells you what to do, when to do it, and how much you will get paid, regardless of what happens. When I use the term "socialized medicine". I may not be using the correct term, but by socialized medicine, I mean countries where the government takes an active roll in the healthcare delivery and cost control. I am not aware of any country, with socialized medicine, where the system works as well as the one we have in the U.S. now. In many countries, they have an interesting way of dispensing healthcare. Their system works well for the normal, routine colds, coughs, broken limbs, appendectomies, etc. But, when it comes to the complex conditions, cancer, heart, brain, etc., the wealthy from those countries come to the U.S. for treatment, while the "rank and file" hope that they live long enough to get whatever treatment the government has mandated for their condition. That would really suck!

@niceguy:
Well put, but let me try it with medical insurance...When you're out living your life, and I'm out living mine, I have confidence that if you get sick, you'll have the resources available to compensate your healthcare provider so that they won't pass those costs on to me and everyone else...Auto insurance protects my estate against loss in the event I cause an accident...Similarly, medical insurance protects my estate against loss in the event I need medical care...Using your logic(looking at it from the payee's perspective), auto insurance is protecting victims of accidents(payees) from failure to be compensated so it would stand to reason that medical insurance would be protecting hospitals/heathcare providers(payees) from failure to be compensated(a key reason cited for excessive healthcare costs)...Why would you be FOR MANDATING auto accident victims get compensated but AGAINST MANDATING heathcare providers get compensated?

I think you are reading way too much into the comment...

I think the CBO has been equally criticized over the years by both parties...The quote of "It is not clear what specific policies the federal government can adopt to generate fundamental changes in the health system; that is, it is not clear what specific policies would translate the potential for significant cost savings into reality" doesn't specifically mention the affordable care act...Was the act specifically mentioned anywhere in the context or is this purely inference?

What I find interesting is at first there were cries of "Obamacare covers illegals", and now there are cries of "Obamacare doesn't cover illegals"...Now you are confusing me by taking exception to the fact that the Affordable Care Act explicitly excludes covering illegal immigrants, and then providing reasoning thus defending the exclusion?
I don't know about that...At least not according to most of these sites(page two is even more skeptical):
www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=best+healthcare+systems+in+the+world&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1

I'll agree that the U.S. does still have the best Research and Development...I wouldn't say it was solely due to thirst for profits though as there is also government funding and you can't overlook academia(Universities and other non-profits)...

Such as having insurance exchanges where individual companies are competing against each other for your premiums?

But do you think the Doctors and providers will just volunteer to be more efficient? What if it's inconvenient to them and/or they enjoy the status quo?

"Medical Tourism" is becoming so common now that it's an industry, it travels both ways, and virtually any procedures are available. It may be the healthcare option of the future if nothing is done about costs here...The only thing worse than not getting paid, is not having "customers" to bill because they are all going over-seas for "affordable care"...www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism
Here some of the "routine things",like the Heart-Bypass surgery, that you can get abroad(and their costs):
www.medicaltourism.com/en/compare-costs.html
Some companies are getting involved:
www.abcnews.go.com/Health/americans-surgeries-overseas-us-companies-medical-tourism-health/story?id=20423011
This ones showing that even insurance companies are getting in on it:
www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Medical-Tourism-The-Future-of-Healthcare-233414371.html

@EddyFree:Unless it is a life-threating situation, there is no cost because there is no free service provided.Because of choice. If you hit me with your vehicle, I have no choice but to be in that accident. I do not have the opportunity to not be involved, once I AM involved. Hospitals have a choice - they do not have to treat those who do not have the ability to pay (unless it is life-threating). Hospitals have two reasons for not getting paid - bad debt, where they are expecting to get paid but don't get paid (under-insured patients); and charity, where they know from the onset that they will not get paid. Combined, this total amount is only about 5.8% of total expenses. (2006 numbers) Source. So, by completely eliminating BOTH charity and unpaid debt, which will not happen because you have a significant number of uninsured (illegal aliens, homeless, etc.) who will still not have health insurance, you have only decreased medical expenses by less than 6%. More likely it will be in the 3% range. As for protecting your estate, either from auto accident claims, or medical claims, again, that is your choice. And, in my opinion, it is a good choice. But, you do not have to do it.
??? I am reading it that you are not happy with the fact that "a small group (with $$$) to have an alternative to paying premiums that a larger group must pay." And I am saying "Yes, that is the way it is".
It specifically mentions the ACA. "Rising health costs will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond. In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure." and "Efforts to reduce costs increase the risk that people would not get some health care they need or would like to receive."Source
I do not think that I ever said "Obamacare covers illegals". I am pretty sure that I never said that. And I am not complaining that Obamacare does not cover illegals. I agree with the decision to not cover illegals. What I am saying is that, with illegals not being covered by Obamacare, there are still 12+ million people in America, that will require some form of healthcare at some point, and they are not contributing to the payment of those costs because they are not insured. This goes to what I said above about "bad debt/charity" services provided by hospitals.You gave me a link to a Google page, so I am not sure which page you are referring to, but I assume that it is the Huffington Post link. And, as I read it, the ranking includes the distribution of healthcare. As I said, this country has a problem with the distribution of healthcare services. And, as for the per capita spending, again, I do not know, but I think that some of the high costs of U.S. healthcare is driven by the unnecessary tests and procedures that we discussed earlier. I believe that allowing doctors to be doctors, without fear of risking their practice in a lawsuit, is what is happening in these other countries and should happen here.As I think about it, going back to what we discussed earlier about doctors having a "hammer" held over their heads, you hear nothing about medical malpractice lawsuits, or negligence suits in general, in other countries. What do they do? Are their doctors that much better than ours and they do not make mistakes? Or, do they have magical treatments, that only they have, that treats their patients? Or, do the people realize that the doctors are human, make mistakes, and that is part of life. Maybe, it is our "somebody must pay for my pain" attitude that is causing the problem.
There is still competition. Universities and companies compete like heck for government grants. They try to develop the newest, best and most revolutionary procedures to try and win funding.
Yes. Exactly.
If it means maintaining or gaining patients, yes. They will lose patients, and hence revenue, if they are not running at the front of the pack.
I agree. I think most people believe that medical costs must be contained - including healthcare providers. The debate is how to do it. But, since everything else is becoming a world economy, maybe medical care has to also. You would not think twice about leaving Texas and going to Ohio (Cleveland Clinic) or Minnesota (Mayo Clinic) for a life-saving procedure, maybe in the future you will go to Switzerland or India.