Who says the GOP has no ideas?
They're just the moldie lidies.
How are they going to argue against green technolodgy in cars?
Yell "the horse is king! The automobile is just a fad!?"

"when Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the Social Security program to ensure that every senior citizen in the United States had a baseline of insurance coverage, the private insurance industry didn't go out of business."

The purpose of single payer government run medical insurance is just to stop the greed of private insurance attempting to make a living off of the well and healthy. Their profits go down when they actually have to insure sick people, a not very profitable choice for them. It's purpose is to get rid of them.

No apologies needed. Medicine as business has probably killed more Americans than car accidents and medical mistakes and cancer. Darwin should be alive today to see this going on.

The answer is that it works into the narrative of government and liberals out to destroy business. In other words, we are not trying to do good. We are here to commit evil acts. For any proper story  to work, there must be a villain. That's us.

I can't really think of an "insurance" option similar to Social Security.  I mean, what insurance do you buy that says "If you're unable to work because you're old or unhealthy, we'll pay you x dollars as a stipend."  Perhaps it is I that is missing something.

The difference is that Social Security is, as you say, only a baseline program, which is why the private market for 401ks and annuities is flourishing (this past year notwithstanding).

I want more from a public option than just baseline coverage that I have to supplement with private insurance. I want a comprehensive public option, and such an option will probably cut into some insurance company profits.

Not that there is anything wrong with that...and on the flip side, if the private market is so superior, and government-run programs are so completely hapless, then the insurance industry has nothing to worry about. That's the real story to me: the lack of faith the GOP has in the free market.

I really like the comparison between Social Security's incept and that of the coming Government Based Universal Healthcare program ..

Social Security dealt a great benefit to our society, stabilizing it. Elderly people were able to live their lives out with dignity. In fact, even a former president almost ran into trouble - in its absence and the Govt. had to take very quiet but rapid steps to fix things  there..
Its not well known. But one of our presidents ran into trouble with his business and ended up, in a world without Social Security - almost starving.

Ok, Social Security - stabilized and boosted the economy.  And its costs were not outrageous.
The detractors said it would socialize our society, but it didn't.

Universal Health Care offers the option to many uninsured , the chance to participate in a healthcare plan.  Insofar as it crowds the industry, it will almost certainly set and require benchmark standard pricing for certain procedures. That will be a huge benefit to
the privately insured - simply because as it stands, hospitals are running around trying to keep the costs a moving target by billing up and down ea. insurer on a sliding basis. With the costs of a procedure known, really - its the hospitals and anyone else trying to make a little stash on the side - the ones who are out of business.

So the privately insured will see competitive rates and believe me there are people who will look at the government product, and at their own, and decide carefully whether or not to switch.
These people are prime customers.

In any market, 80% of your business will be generated by 20% of your customers, the ones that count.

Private industry will continue on - we should be careful of which lobbies are actually on the side of healthcare, and which against. The private insurers act against it because they like the status quo.

But the hospitals are ripping them off.
Maybe they would like that to stop too.
Watch what the AMA does..

Social Security is a ponzi scheme.  I don't think there is a whole lot of debate on that point, even  by those who are full-fledged supporters of the program (save for the SSA itself).  As long as the population of workers paying into SS continues to increase measured against the pool of those drawing on it, there is no problem.  The current situation facing us, however, is that the demographics of the US point to a shrinking worker base supporting a growing pool of SS beneficiaries.

There simply are not enough financial resources to continue supporting SS in the future.  Neither the R nor the D party have provided a satisfactory plan to address this issue; not to mention the problems with Medicare/Medicaid funding.  

My understanding is that the entire SS issue revolves around two choices:

1.  Do Americans want a form of guaranteed income (either for retirement or as the result of disability, etc.)?

2.  If the answer to 1 is yes, then what form should that take? Public or Private.

If public using the existing SS framework, then Americans will be required to turn over control of a certain portion of their income to non-elected officials in the federal bureaucracy who may or may not be qualified to manage such a fund. In the event of shortfalls in funds, the government would necessarily need to make up the shortfall via an increase in taxes on workers or via debt instruments (bonds, etc.). Additionally, there is some overhead cost for running the SSA.

On the other hand, if workers are allowed to choose a private investment option, the managment of their investment funds are entirely in their own hands.  There is no mandatory overhead cost and there is no need for the government to make-up shortfalls, as they have no involvement in private invenstment transactions (save for an oversight role).  This allows workers more freedom, but places a greater burden of responsibility on them, as well.  

These are the choices that we face when addressing these issues.  I certainly can see certain advantages and disadvantages to both systems, but I question whether SS is (a)sustainable and (b)representative of the constitutional tradition of a limited government republic.

A good point and one that very few Americans seem aware of.  On the whole, the IRA path seems much safer than, say a 401k or mutual fund investment.  Some swear by bonds or CD's.  Call me old-fashioned, but in this day and age, stuffing your earnings under the mattress doesn't seem all that crazy.

Stocks are a gamble, no doubt about it.  Other investment vehicles, however, seem about as safe as SS though - bonds, CD's, etc.

Also, let's not forget annuities; many companies do offer guaranteed fixed rates of return on certain annuity products.

suggests that this is not the case. The introduction of government health insurance plan did not lead to the demise of private insurance plans.

Even if you had a Public Plan, there would always be a market for premium, private plans which the well-to-do would buy.  Also, there would be a huge market for supplemental or gap plans, like you have presently with Medicare.

"Here's what I'm missing: Seventy years ago, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the Social Security program to ensure that every senior citizen in the United States had a baseline of insurance coverage, the private insurance industry didn't go out of business. That is to say, even though every American bought in to the government system, the private insurers weren't squeezed out."

It seems to me that you are not comparing the same thing.  It's like comparing apples to oranges, yes they are both round, both fruits - but vastly different.

By social security, are you speaking of Medicare? Because social security was a retirement account for seniors, and created because many seniors had lost everything in the depression and had absolutely no means to make more money.  The thinking was if you pay into Social Security and the government invests it for you it's like a great big security blanket for you...ahhh...(do you sleep better at night knowing it's waiting for you?)

Medicare, on the other hand, was started around 1965.  Created to provide health insurance for seniors.  Again, because they couldn't get health insurance and most group plans wanted seniors off their plans in retirement.  So the governement again provided a safety blanket for seniors - ahhh...

Neither one of those programs in any way competed with private insurance!  Actually BOTH of those programs ended up saving private insurance money.

Now both of those programs are running out of money and fast.  And instead of fixing that problem, we are going to throw yet another log to the fire in a government plan?  Let me guess, everything for a $10 copay with $50 a month premiums.

That's what everyone wants after all, isn't it?

Medicare does a horrible job setting prices and cuts the healthcare industry's legs out from underneath them.  You are lucky to get 10 cents on your dollar back when you submit something to Medicare, plus you have to submit it over and over again just to get it paid.  

A government run option won't set the prices based on supply and demand or what the market will allow - but rather on what they think is "right".  To hell with the fact the doctors and hospitals have their own bills to pay. What you end up with is what you see all over this country - funds that collapse on themsleves because the claims outweigh the premium collected.

Then that plan too will be bankrupt, along with private health insurance and the health care industry in general.

The government needs to stay away from creating any sort of plan.  Healthcare is expensive becase HEALTHCARE IS EXPENSIVE. And why is that?

I'll give you a few bullet points before I leave..

1) The population is aging (can you fix that? I don't think so) and getting sicker.

2. Advances in medicine (I suppose we should go back to when they just "bleed" you to fix a migraine)
   
3. The cost of unecessary tests and procedure that doctors do because they are afraid of getting sued.
   
4. Malpractice Insurance
   
5. The employee benefits that hospitals pay to keep the best staff employed (and the union off their backs)
   
6. Government regulations (which in my state add an additional 135% to our premiums so people can have guaranteed coverage for things like invitro treatments...yeah, because giving birth is in the bill of rights..)
   
7. Insurance fraud (like shoplifting adds costs to retail, so does defrauding your insurance company but people do it all the time).
   
8. The cost to research a drug and bring it to market is HUGE because of the FDA regulations (which I am not saying you should get rid of, just it's a driving cost of insurance).

So how would a government run program plan to fix anyone of those problems?  They aren't, they are talking about PRICE FIXING - setting and unrealistic price for a good and thereby killing the competition.  If our government was truly serious about making health care more affordable, they would address any one of those 8 issues..but they aren't - they don't care.