It would be nice to have the single payer alternative on the table as a negotiating position, but a public option is probably the best we can hope to achieve, and much more politically acceptable. Any proposal that forces people into the government plan who are happy with their present coverage will be opposed strongly and defeated.

Single payer is the only option that makes sense, but that doesn't have lobbyists putting money in "our representatives" pockets. I just loved listening to npr interviewing the Good Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia and hearing him declare that we had the greatest healthcare in the world. Nobody at npr batted an eye or was crude enough to mention that we rank 37th in the WHO rankings, not even near the top.

The only problem with those who are happy with their coverage is they don't really understand who "The Doctor" is. My doctor prescribes medication for pain and the insurance company disallows it saying only one sixth is enough, we're talking fifty tablets a month versus the (300) the doctor prescribes. I don't know why I bother to go to the MD Doctor, at all, I should just call the insurance company (Real Doctor) accounting person, tell them my symptoms and see what they will let me have? It is easy to be happy when you don't have a problem or realize how it really works - ignorance is bliss. I do so miss my bliss.

Knowdoubt, I sympathize with your situation but single payer will not fix the problem that pain is undermedicated in this country. My own coverage is through Kaiser Permanente and the doctor works for the HMO so there is really no separation between doctor and insurance. I also have the ability to e-mail with my doctors and discuss any concerns I have with any proposed or ongoing therapy, and have found that this is the most important thing (communication) to ensuring that I always receive (only) the correct medications in the correct dosages.

MG, I'm glad you've got such good coverage, many don't, if they have coverage at all. The problem is not the Doctor under medicating or under prescribing, the problem is the insurance company arbitrarily and capriciously deciding that one sixth of the prescription is adequate.

There are many other problems with the "for profit" system we have and the undue influence the corporations exert on our representatives in congress with the billions they spend to influence and control the debate that excludes "single payer" as an option.

The WHO has rated the U.S. 37th in comparison to other countries, many with the single payer option rank much higher than we do and that would include some underdeveloped countries. I think the polls show thaqt a majority of Americans favor single payer over the current for profit system, but unfortunately their representatives are more beholden to the lobbyists that finance their election machine than the people who actually elect them.

The problem is the "I got mine" attitude of the "haves" vs the "have nots." I like my doctor working for me and not the "for profit" insurance company, talk about a conflict of interest that just screams out at you.

As a general strategy, giving in ahead of time never works. Demanding everything you want now never works either, in the sense of getting what you demand; but it has a better track record of producing at least some movement.

The more people who contact their Senators and Representatives and demand single-payer, the more support for a viable public option there'll be.

As good as it would be for the U.S. to have, I don't see single-payer on the horizon.