Reply #54: Okay, let's discuss those one by one.

[Gormy Cuss]

Choosing not to have health insurance -- yeah, you're right about that one.

Choosing the plan of your choice -- how many plans can you choose from now? If you're talking about plans offered through an employer, understand that your choices have already been severely constrained by the company. I can promise you that I was offered totally different choices by my employers and if every plan is better than your employer's, tough for you because you don't have the right to choose my plans.

Choosing the doctor of your choice -- nothing about single payer would require that. In fact, unless you have an indemnity plan now, your choice of doctors has been limited to whatever network has been set up as part of your PPO or HMO.

I have no idea what paying on an as-needed basis mean other than the same as your first point, going without insurance altogether. I'll guess that the incentive for that is that you don't have enough money to pay for other, more immediate needs. That's a valid concern for many people, but what will you do when you or a family member gets in a car accident or comes down with a serious but survivable condition? If you were in a country with a single payer system, the health care would happen without anyone asking you how you plan to pay for it.

But let's refer again to those health care plans you can choose from now. If you've ever had to use it for hospitalization you know that there are weeks or months of follow up with bills and insurance statements. Bear in mind that a large percent of the cost of your care now is the cost of pushing that paper around. Under single payer that paperwork would practically disappear because all of the billing goes to one place. That should also mean that costs go down, and what we pay for single payer will be less than the private insurance plans we have now.