” To a large extent conclusions from the testing of these various hypotheses have already been obtained . We know that the cost of making payments for medical expenses incurred is lower when formed by Medicare than by the myriad of private for profit insurers. Since making these payments is in essence what insurers do, then one would hypothesize that publicly managed risk plans would be cheaper than private competing for profit plans.”

Well now that really is an earth-shaking revelation from a finely honed analytical mind. Such laughable self-importance. I teasingly said “you are not going to be much fun at the Revolution,” and you COMPLETELY missed it. So correction: you are not going to be much fun at anything, period. And I’ll debate you anywhere, anytime and we’ll see who persuades people and WHO puts them into a coma.

But these conclusions need arguing for on the same basis that conclusions are reached in the hard sciences. That is by testing rigorously arrived at tentative proposals (hypotheses). Conclusions arrived at in this manner are not open to endless debate. In contrast, analyzing the motives of different people as the basis of reaching conclusions although satisfying is ultimately unpersuasive

As an example, to arrive at a well founded conclusion as to which is the most efficient way to manage risk, we would put the competing proposals to a test; a single public plan vs. multiple for profit private competing plans vs. whatever the current plan is. First it is incumbent to be clear as to what elements enter into the managing of risk, such as a sufficiently large pool of low risk and high risk participants, an actuarial appraisal of the costs associated with that risk (medical expenses) incurred by participants and the most efficient way of paying out those cost. All these factor will determine the premiums to the participants and the government/taxpayer.

To a large extent conclusions from the testing of these various hypotheses have already been obtained . We know that the cost of making payments for medical expenses incurred is lower when formed by Medicare than by the myriad of private for profit insurers. Since making these payments is in essence what insurers do, then one would hypothesize that publicly managed risk plans would be cheaper than private competing for profit plans.

But this hypothesis remains to be tested and shown. It can be put to the test by allowing concurrently the managing of risk by a public plan of the 47 million currently uninsured vs. the managing of risk of everyone else by privately managed for profit plans. The tests must be comparable with the single variable tested being the cost of managing the risk.

The individual mandate violates basic constitutional protections reserved for individuals on several ground and must be litigated before this alleged reform can proceed. Imagine a mandate to buy insurance under tax penalty and no effective mechanism to control cost or the discriminatory practices of insurance corporations, tax exempt or not! This is what we are looking at!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person’s will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection_clause

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that “(n)o state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States’ professed commitment to the proposition that “all men are created equal”[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.

“More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws.”

Folks I’m not opposed to health care /Insurance reform, but this is set up to further enslave Americans. Corporations operating at the state level : http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/compstudy_52006.pdf, have gamed the system. The corporate insurers morph in different states as for profit or tax exempt, depending on the corporate form most advantageous to secure profit, while denying coverage and access to health care, based on discrimination just as segregationist denied Americans protection of Constitutional law at the state level. Slave owners claimed state’s right and opposed abolition because it cost them to much $. Segregationist claimed same, as do “Health insurance Corporations”

The egregious protectionism for corporate America at the expense of America’s Life and Liberties was forewarned by Jefferson, and is exactly what our forefather dealt with. As Jefferson warned:”…. usurpation of constitutional checks and balances by corporate aristocrats in the lust for endless profit…” or “financial institution and corporations being a greater threat to liberty than standing armies….” or “…corporations depriving people of all property until they wake up homeless…” I guess not a word is relevant?