[jasonlotito]

Patronizing Beta Insurance once your dead is difficult. =) Acme insurance denies my claim, getting Beta suddenly becomes difficult if not impossible. With no public option, I have no other recourse.

Living in Canada, I've never had to deal with the government making decisions, it's always been the doctors. Their is a base line, and you can still get private insurance and go to privately run facilities. You make the distinction too black and white in your original post. You can have a public and private insurance.

It's funny. My wife, a Canadian, talks with my sister-in-law, and has some family down in the US. Sometimes they bring up health insurance issues, and my wife is flabbergasted at the lack of... well... anything. The sheer number of services provided here is overwhelming, and this includes preventative services.

Anyways, I'm starting to ramble. =)

[jdminhbg]

Presumably, you base your decision on which to patronize on whether they are screwing over other customers -- it's also difficult to stop eating at Poisoned Hamburger once you're dead.

I think you're confused a little -- I'm not the OP, so I'm not the one proposing a false dilemma between single-payer and free-market. In fact, in the US we have both, and we just got a nice new law that enshrines the worst features of each.

[jasonlotito]

Sorry about the confusion. =) Didn't mean to.

As for your first point, screwing over the customers: I've never known an insurance company to not screw over customers to some degree.

Anyways, this is all besides the point, because regardless of the insurance company you patronize, their is someone making a decision on your insurance claim. Whether it's the government, or some private agency, their is still someone who has to sign off.

So yeah, someone can just Beta instead of Acme, and it won't change a thing.

Edit: And the final straw, you assume insurance companies will insure you. It's not just about choosing your insurance plan. You have to be allowed to take the plan as well.

[anamax]

> Living in Canada, I've never had to deal with the government making decisions, it's always been the doctors.

Oh really? The doctors decide whether the pharmacy has a given drug? The doctors decide how many doctors are available in a given area? The doctors decide what equipment is in a given hospital, where the hospital is, etc?

[jasonlotito]

I can play this game, too.

> Oh really?

No, not always. My wife and I also have a say, though we usually take the advice of the doctor. So, between us and my doctor, yes, 100%.

[anamax]

> My wife and I also have a say, though we usually take the advice of the doctor. So, between us and my doctor, yes, 100%.

You and your doctor decide whether the pharmacy has a given drug? You and your doctor decide how many doctors there are in your area? You and your doctor decide what equipment your hospital has?

[jasonlotito]

I said what I said and meant it, and it's accurate. You might think I'm making it up, but I'm not. I really don't know how I can be more accurate.

Maybe you could explain why I'm wrong?

[anamax]

> I said what I said and meant it, and it's accurate. You might think I'm making it up, but I'm not. I really don't know how I can be more accurate.

I'd like to see some details.

How do you and your doctor implement your decision that there should be more doctors in your area? How do you get the money to buy specific equipment or build a new facility?

Note that "we vote" doesn't count. "We write a letter" counts only if the recipient always does as you request.

I'm somewhat skeptical given my understanding of a recent case in Canada where, as I understand it, some court found that the right to get on a waiting list for care didn't constitute care so the govt couldn't block Canadians from paying private providers. If you and your doctor could simply requisition facilities, there'd be no waiting lists.