Healthcare bill

Same as any allergy mostly.  Some people are simply allergic to some things --- from penicillin to poison ivy to peanuts,etc.

I still agree with good research online nowadays you can fix some issues.  But still a good idea to get a specialist to help.  There really are some good, dedicated ones.

Sure. You can argue either way if the regulations are good or not. But for sure they drive the costs up and take much needed time away from the doctors.

Also, not sure you can lay much blame with drug companies. For sure they are in it to make money. It is the same as anything else really. If you don't want a car with power windows, brakes, airbags, cruise control, etc. --- then you simply pay less. If you do not want to take the expensive medicines, etc. that cost so much---you really do not have to take them. But the fact still remains that these things are expensive.  You can go back to the 1960s if you like---the cost is cheaper but the specialized care and new medicines are not there to help folks live longer.

The drugs cost more than they should to develop---but you can argue that the reasons they do are good reasons.  I get your point when you say that.  I also get the point when someone else says it should be a cheaper process.  I cannot say either of you are completely wrong. It has to be decided what we as a people think is most important.  Elite healthcare is not going to ever be cheap or the incentive is lost.

If there were no insurance at all, how do you imagine the process would work long-term?

I think the premise here is incorrect.  See GB or Canada for examples.

Also WSC in his above post is more correct when he said none of these options are good.  It is not a choice of forward or backward---they are all simply completely wrong. 

There are folks that will argue the opposite---very well---that quite simply the free market has not been allowed to work.  But I think both are wrong.

Yes.  I am asking you what you think it would be like?  Obviously it used to be that way.

Yes, the ones mentioned are considered forerunners.  The theory is the others you mentioned will eventually have the same issues.  If it is not totally free, then some people, by definition, will have trouble paying.  They are poor, made poor choices, or choose not to use healthcare.

'there is something inherently wrong w the current Medicare system when there is very little incentive for the ultimate consumer to keep the cost of the service down or even understand the charging mechanisms'  Not sure this is what you meant to say?  The consumer is the user?  Of course they have incentive to keep costs down but cannot control it themselves.  Not sure very many people at all understand the charging mechanisms---let alone the average consumer.

Sure we do so much of the research---but we also regulate a lot the study and release of new drugs, etc.

Employers are involved by choice.  Theoretically, it is an incentive to draw better employees.  They could do that with other perks like car insurance or matching 401k, etc.

Yes---a lot of republicans advocate a system like the car insurance system.  They advocate the cross-state use, lots of competition, etc.

But even this has not proved to address the rising costs.  Even having too many competitors has proven to drive costs up in some studies.