I agree with you.  It is shocking the amount of irrelevant, unrelated BS they stuff into a bill in order to "appease" the various regions and their powerful lobbyists.  The very corruption you endured for 8 years is going to take a long time, if ever, to change. YOUR HEALTH CARE BILL should be about a page long. It frightens me a lot —the potential for abuse and further corruption, and my prayers are with you all that you have a solid realistic resolution for the greater good of all soon!

And no,  Canada’s wasn’t implemented in a few days either.  Saskatchewan was the first "sample" province to have it put in.  Just 1/10 regions to start with.  In the USA, the model of veteran’s care seems to be pretty good as a starting point.  But I’d like to see California to start with since they are on the verge of collapsing, then add states into the mix.  I was born in Sask. and I remember being held over my mother’s head screaming my head off as all the women in town demonstrated for Medicare. Google Tommy Douglas if you are curious. He is the "father" of the medical system up here and its ideals. 

One possible solution to the healthcare issue may be on the table somewhere, but I haven’t heard it debated or read much about it.  There may be excellent reasons why this idea wouldn’t work and I’m sure I’ll hear them, which is fine.  The idea:  what if we expanded our two existing "public option" healthcare programs, Medicaid and Medicare?  Medicaid eligibility could be expanded to cover the unemployed and uninsured up to age 54 and Medicare to cover those 55-64.  This would accomplish near-universal coverage of those who are not covered now and allow those who are happy with their plans to keep them.  People who lose their private insurance because they become seriously ill and exhaust their benefits or cannot afford the premiums (based on income and family size) could become eligible for one of these programs depending on their age.  

For sure, this idea doesn’t directly address the increasing costs of private health plans, or the impending insolvency of Medicare—which is a whole different issue—but perhaps the "threat" that significant numbers of people could leave private plans if premiums continue to rise beyond their ability (not willingness) to pay would help to hold down the unreasonable increases of the past few years.  Premiums for the "Expanded M" programs would be based on income and family size for those under 65 so that higher-income participants would be required to pay more.

Building on existing programs could save the money that would be required to establish a new public healthcare bureaucracy.  Regardless of how much we may like or dislike Medicaid and Medicare, they already have experienced staff, administrative structure and supporting technology.  This plan would provide a "public option" for those who need and do not have coverage, while the basic structure of the existing private, employment-based system stays in place—at least for now.  I still believe that our current system is not sustainable and that some kind of "public option" is necessary, but an interim system that marries the two could be a more pragmatic approach considering today’s economic conditions.

Health care Reform bills being proposed do not include any of the myths(lies) that are being floated around.

 When presented with the facts opponents often say- well I just don’t trust the government.  Why?   You are getting your social security checks and Medicare still works..  They have not yet folded and none of the scare tactics used to prevent passage have happened.  No one has to wear dog tags.

You do not have to sign up for the plan.  If you have insurance keep it. The public option is for people who can not and do not have insurance.

Businesses can not drop employees into the public option.   Small businesses who qualify can give their employees insurance through this plan.  

The English and Canadian health care system is being bashed for no good reason.  Health Reform uses our existing system just adding a public option. .  Most of the Canadians and English people like their system.  They all have health care and private insurance is available.

Do any health professonals and/or RNs here remember when returning military took over "ward management" from RNs, had their tuition paid to "learn" to a PA? Business in medicine grew along with the male, military model of medical training.

Most regions used to have councils of governments that determined when a health facility could purchase a new hyperbaric chamber, MRI,  etc. No longer. Now its competitive management, and those instruments must be kept busy with patients’ bodies to pay for them in every "health facility" in the nation! Business again! Not patient care!

Its how many tests must be done, how many MRIs, how many invasive procedures to pay for the technology a "health facility" bought to be competitive - competetion is always HEALTHY?