Admittedly, this idea isn't entirely original to me, but as an overall plan I didn't (as far as I know) take it from anyone. First, require private insurance companies to cover everyone- just basic medical coverage. Then the government should pay the insurance companies for any losses incurred because of the inability of the poor to pay premiums. My reasoning is that this would actually be less expensive than paying for the medical care of the poor without insuring them, since first, insured people have better health and second, the premiums collected by the insurance companies over time, even if not paid in full, would lessen the financial loss involved and thus actually lower government spending while providing universal health insurance without any nationalization. Now I'll wait to be told what would go wrong. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Your plan is not too far from what Hillary's plan was in Bill's first year as President. Here's why I think it's not very good.
We don't really need or want health insurance... we need health care. Letting the big insurance companies process and administer health care is a license to print $. They would be all for it. The USA has by far the highest administrative overhead costs of any nation on earth. It's because the insurance companies are in control.

My idea.., (It's not new, either.)
Remove the responsibility of providing health care from business. The business of business should be business. In other countries, health care is covered by the state thus giving their industries a clear competitive advantage over our clunky system. Imagine the economic surge that would follow if businesses didn't have to shoulder such a burden. Once done, have the government set up a national health care plan similar to every other industrialized country in the world. Our per capita health care costs would then be lowered into the range of the countries with whom we compete. Socialized medicine already exists here in the form of Medicaid and Medicare. The Armed Forces also have socialized medicine for their members.
To those who claim that the US government can't do anything right I'd say...
sure we can. Have a little faith in good ol' American ingenuity. But if you can't contribute to societies welfare, at least step out of the way.

I've seen the statistics about the per capita costs of health care in industrialized nations. However, I've also seen that doctors earn far less in those countries, and I'm guessing that other medical professionals do as well. Furthermore, with health care nationalized, the government would be setting prices, which always causes serious problems. I think that, because of stress, poorer health habits or things we don't even know about, Americans just have poorer health, so nationalized health care would just drive up the deficit while leading to rationing of labor and care (like the low number of nurses in European countries). Some people would benefit in the short term, but in the long term, I think our health would become even worse (not to mention the national debt). By the way, since what I suggested seems like an idea that would save money, if her plan was similar, why did Hillary Rodham Clinton get a low rating from a taxpayer's group? Has she moved left since suggesting such a plan?

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

It wouldn't save money. It would have been a huge windfall for insurance companies.
Hillary has moves to the right. She supported Bush's war and thinks a flag burning amendment to the Constitution is a swell idea. I trust her as far as I can throw her husband.

I think that it could save money if it was overseen properly (i.e. making sure that insurance companies didn't lie about what subsidies they needed). The whole idea of an anti-flag burning Amendment is absurd, though. I knew that she was trying to be more hawkish, but I didn't think she had gone that far.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Given that the medicare prescription drug benefit is similar to what you are suggesting (government pays, private insurance prospers), I wonder how you picture that this would be a money saving solution? The drug benefit is already an undiluted disaster on almost every front. It is complicated for enrollees, it is complicated for health care providers and it is a budget buster for Medicare.

In other words, it's a fairly typical government solution to a problem.

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

Well, as much as I've changed my mind in the past, I'm standing by this plan. In a side note, it's those who directly give medical care (including prescription drug manufacturers) who are making excessive profits, not insurance companies. I thought about price controls, but those lead to shortages.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Do you have a link showing said "excessive profits"? I look at financial statements for a living. It's what I do. I've never seen these profits you speak of.

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

They are excessive from a social perspective in that they hurt the poor, but they are probably within the boundaries of the market and so not excessive from an accounting standpoint.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)