Yet, rather than feeling hopeful, I'm embarrassed to say my main reaction is to feel nauseated by how my own health insurance problems are determined by out of touch people who, if I'm lucky, will happen to see a documentary about people like me who can't afford insurance.  

HR 676, Medicare for All, is far superior to what Obama is proposing. With 90 copsonsors it has a very realistic chance of passing.

The day after tomorrow there will be demonstrations across the nation, including  Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburg.

However much you like Obama, HR 676 is far superior to what he is proposing.

Just saying.

I have a question about the state of the public discussion of single-payer health care, at the level of ideas and principles at an economic level. First, some background comments:
-------

I agree with Keynes that "The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."

Often these ruling ideas have devolved into a simplistic form, like the simplistic market fundamentalism that is today a background to much of what is said about (among other things) health care.

The idea that single-payer health care systems are superior clashes with the idea that minimally regulated markets are always the best way to organize the production and delivery of goods and services. To argue for single-payer in terms of concrete facts (successes overseas, problems with the US system, etc.) doesn't address a key problem as seen by thoughtful, principled market fundamentalists and their fellow travelers: Advocacy of "socialized medicine" seems to open the door to advocacy of socialized everything, which they know in their bones is Bad.

What principle draws a line here? How could they possibly acquiesce to single payer without abandoning their core beliefs? Without an answer to this, advocacy of single-payer is an assault on a fiercely defended intellectual fortress, and will be fought to the death.

It might be nice to avoid this, especially if it is entirely unnecessary.
-------

That said, here is the question:

Who is arguing (and where?) that health insurance markets are fundamentally different from other markets, in ways that can't be fixed, even in principle, by greater transparency, competition, consumer information, and so on?

The case for this can be made, briefly and persuasively, but I don't see this appearing as a visible part of the public discussion, even on the moderately wonky side of the world. Am I missing something?

I see a huge opportunity cost here. Pushing the case for a fundamental difference could melt away hard-core resistance in a small but extraordinarily influential segment of the opposition.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

I was really surprised to read this statement. While the Finance Committee may be instrumental in any health care reform, it is not the key committee. The key committee is the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Which, of course, is chaired by Ted Kennedy, who in his many years on this committee, has done absolutely nothing, less than nothing even, not even participate in the debate. He's been on this committee for decades, and has been either the senior member or chair for most of that time. And he hasn't even come up with any kind of health plan at all.

It's hard to come up with four areas in this country that are in worse shape than Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. And it's a direct result of Kennedy's long stewardship of these issues. How long are people, especially progressives, going to avoid confronting the fact that Kennedy is in power only because of his family name (and, like George W., because of his daddy's money), and that he is utterly incompetent, if not outright corrupt, and has proven himself quite incapable of dealing with his responsibilities?

OBAMA REQUIREMENT AND PROMISE

FYI, he told us on 4/3/2007 what the requirement is to make a specific health care policy political feasible. In fact, he used the words "I promise you" on that date. You can read about Obama's requirement and promise here

There's much text on that web page, so here is a summary of it:

communicate that we want non-profit single-payer national health insurance via our personally-composed letters, sent via the U.S. Mail, to our U.S. Representative(s).

Have thousands of citizens do that in each U.S. Congressional District. Obama said "a thousand or two thousand," but this issue requires a target of 2,000 to 4.000 persons in each district communicating to their U.S. Representative (U.S. Congressperson) due to the huge opposition of for-profit companies.

We need to have his maximum be our minimum; this is too critical to do otherwise. We do not want to continue to be doomed to disappointing failures, like in Oregon in Nov. 2002 and California in Nov. 2004 ... and all the other times before and since!

WE ARE IN DANGER OF NOT HAVING A SUPPORTIVE PRESIDENT FOR 2 REASONS

1. In general, Obama made it very clear that he will not advocate for the change unless we follow his requirement. Barack Obama made it perfectly clear with strong words on 4/5/2007 that his support requires what he called the voters "rallying for change" and establishing a "mandate for change." In other words, it is truly in the hands of the citizens! That fits with what Senator Obama has been saying over and over again about participation by the people. However, we have not yet acted on his requirement and promise.

2. Nader (Independent) and McInney (Green Party) will endanger Obama winning the U.S. Presidency unless citizens IMMEDIATELY act on his requirement and have him support single-payer BEFORE the November election. Why? Because Nader supports single-payer being implemented as fast as possible, because he knows how critical it is to do so. And Cynthia McKinney is also a strong supporter and will also draw votes away from Obama.

HOW TO FULFILL HIS REQUIREMENT

What is required? 2,000 to 4,000 Americans in each U.S. Congressional District to:

--- GET KNOWLEDGE, such as via Single-Payer Education  and

--- TAKE ACTION according to the Schedule -- to communicate to their U.S. Representative

All details, including communicating in more ways and to more persons (Senators and Presidential candidates) is supported at the links provided from the Schedule

My Promise to You is that I have a web site that is focused on providing the facts, such as the information above. Key people in every U.S. Congressional District can either get 2,000 to 4,000 people to follow the Schedule, linked above, or kiss our jobs, our economy and our country goodbye. This is getting to be a more critical situation every month of every year. You must speak out and get this train moving NOW!

Communicate to your U.S. Representative, no matter what their political party is.