Other civilized, first-world countries have already found the better way.
As long as we ignore how they're doing it, we'll continue to suffer at the hands of insurance companies.

Thank you Jay for realizing there is a better way that does not involved a complete government take-over. Timj says that other countries have found a better way, but who has the best doctors and hospitals in the world? The U.S. and that is not by chance.

Change is needed, but if we go towards a more socialist system, where will the world send its patients for the best healthcare? Where will Canada fly the lady who's about to have quadruplets because there aren't enough hospital beds in her country to deliver her babies?

It won't be the U.S. if we embrace a single-payer system. The reason prices are out of control are that consumers aren't paying them directly. This eliminates incentive to keep them down. Replacing insurance companies with government will not reduce costs. Instead, our government, like in other socialist systems, will have to ration healthcare. Old people will have to wait, and possibly die in the process, doctors' pay will decrease until our hospitals are staffed with lower quality physicians as in England. New and innovative procedures will be stunted.

There is a better way, and I trust Utah more than D.C. to find it.

Medicare's administrative costs are 2% of revenues. In private insurance companies, administrative costs range from 15% to 29%. But keep telling yourself that government is less efficient.

Doncha know Jay? You have to milk these things for all they're worth- that means more money for the interested parties. First plan the study, then do the study and then maybe implement your policies. We'll be living in Communist China by then.
I can solve the high cost of health care and higher education in a New york minute: end all Federal Government involvement by eleminating Medicare and Federally subsidized student loans. Hospitals and Schools will be forced to lower costs because demand will drop like a rock until prices fall in line with what Consumers can afford. It's all very simple.

I've said it before and I'll say it now:
1. Immediately prohibit insurance companies from paying greater than 80% of any actual payment for medical services. If the doctor discounts for a patient, he discounts for the insurance company (and visa versa).

2. Prohibit lawsuits for any medical care that is discounted or provided free of charge.

3. Facilitate a county (charity) hospital, and staff it with an experienced Doctor, and medical students so we don't have to pay for thier residency programs and needy patients can get their care for free.

4. Enlarge the utilization of Physician Assistants-making sure that thier cost savings are passed through to the patients and don't simply go towards coroporate profits. This might best be done with facilitating an increase in retail based clinics with no billing/payment at time of service; retail lease rates instead of professional medical office lease rates, etc.

The reform is best done at the state level, and keep the feds out of it. The only candidate with the vision for this is Wayne Crawford running against Greg Curtis. If no-one else gets elected, he could do more for health care reform in Utah than any other candidate.

@Dave Hansen.

I disagree with you about a single-payer system. The military utilizes a single-payer system for many of its employees in the United States,and provides excellent care.

I know some say Canada and Great Britain "ration" healthcare. France doesn't. Taiwan doesn't. We spend a much higher percentage of GDP on health care than other countries. If we continued to spend that percentage of GDP in a single-payer system, I don't believe there would be rationing.

See the George Will piece today on Arizona's proposed amndment to free up medical care by getting PATIENTS more freedom to choose, and prohibiting the restrictions on providers from granting discounts for cash, etc.

Most of the cost and bureaucratic nonsense and preventive medicine aspects are caused by current regulations.

More freedom, less bureaucracy will provide better care at lower cost for everybody.

Socialists will argue that the Nanny State must take care of everything, and take all our income and ration out whatever care some bureaucrat thinks appropriate, and pay doctors at a rate the government decides... or at least any doctors that will submit to abusive oversight and micromanagement.

I don't think Jay is thinking clearly when he says government bureaucrats would have to be worse than his current experiences. All bureaucracies are bad, and the insurance companies have proven themselves just as inept as any government bureaucracy would be. I don't think the profit motive really helps Jay's circumstance -- that company doesn't care much if he leaves them, and in fact their strategy for making a profit is mostly based on denying care for any possible reason. It's a cost control strategy, and they probably don't know how to win at a customer loyalty=revenue type of strategy.