Originally Posted by JavaBlack

I'm not sure about websites.
Unfortunately this is one of those issues where I find myself in agreement with Michael Moore... but his movie on the subject is based more on emotional appeal and hijinks than on the real reasons.
Kucinich and Nader both back a single-payer policy. I'd imagine Ralph Nader's website has some description.
Basically single-payer is what conservatives call "socialized medicine". Nader rightly points out that it isn't. It's actually nationalization of health insurance. If we called it "socialized medicine" then we'd have to call the current system "insurance company-run medicine".
I know this is contentious to many... but I think insurance is exactly the kind of industry that should be nationalized if any (particularly when involving things that we deem should be universal).
Of course most single payer systems do not outlaw competition in insurance (and shouldn't). In Canada for instance, you can choose to pay for non-government insurance if you have problems with the government insurance.

That's not to say the Clinton-Obama type plan is worse than the current system... It would at least make insurance companies cover everyone (thus justifying the subsidies). And the main advantage is that it will not be as contentious as a single-payer system as it will be seen as "free market".
My main gripe is that it really isn't any more "free market" and shouldn't be claimed as such. And I think it will do little or nothing to curb administrative costs... resulting in us paying both taxes and premiums.