I had problems with the gentleman's statements from the get-go.

While I sympathize with his sentiment, I disagree with him in that he's proceeding from a false premise.

He says 'why should we punish the 85% to give to the 15%'. That's a fair question, but I think it's the wrong one. He then goes on, after putting the debate in those terms, to make his point.

He says 85% are happy with their health care - he's wrong about that. there's dissatisfaction about ever increasing co-pays, member premiums and perhaps the biggest black mark of all - cancelling your insurance when you need it.

We pay more and get less than any other country on the planet. The question he SHOULD be asking is "Why are we the #1 spenders on health care, don't cover everyone, and have the 37th-rated system in the world?"

We don't need a completely nationalized system (like Canada and the UK) - Switzerland and France have proven that.

What would happen if all those people who HAVE employer-supplied health insurance were suddenly given a raise equal in amount to the employer-paid portion of their health-insurance premiums - and then had to write the check to the insurance company every payday?

There would be an OUTRAGE.

I heard the story of an employer in Michigan years ago who set up an interesting pay system. He set up a line of tables. At the first table, you received your pay - your full gross pay, in cash. You were then directed to the next table where you paid your FICA. The next, you paid your federal income tax, and then your state income tax, and so on down the line.

It didn't take long for the people to stop voluntarily going down the line.

When it's just numbers on a pay slip, it means less than if you're actually forking over the cash.

If we were forking over the cash directly, I think the debate would be VERY different.

Of course, this brings up the idea of having an employer give you a fund in your paycheck and YOU choose which health insurance plan to go with and you're NOT limited by state boundaries.