Of course paying for it will be the issue.  My question, if we removed the SS tax cap, how much would we need to keep social security solvent?  Could we keep the same tax percent, remove the cap and split it among SS and UHC?  Would there be enough in there to cover?  If so, then the majority of tax payers would not see a decrease to their paycheck, something that would go over big.  Maybe figure what companies are paying for healthcare and then put a tax for half that amount, to entice their support?  

Scary as hell and it wouldn't even be surprising. I'd love to see the Republicans try it, though. People would go nuts at that prospect of little unaccountable Abu Ghraibs popping up in every town.

Why?

Because mercenaries get paid more than cops do, that's why.  It only happens in Iraq because there is a shortage of volunteer soilders, they are unaccountable, and the Bush administration doesn't actually care about costs, at least in no logical way.  But no city government would be willing to pay more for less.

When you're talking to Republicans or business leaders, yea, that's a good way to put it.  But if you're talking to Church-goers, for example, it might be best to talk about "love thy neighbor" and such.

I'll take someone who wants my vote over someone who wants my money.
 

Nominating HRC is a surefire way not to acheive universal healthcare.  Anything proposed by HRC will be derided as "Hillary Care" by the GOP.  I predict that HRC would not even propose universal healthcare because of what happened in 1994. We need a new candidate offering a new approach to healthcare -- possibly Russ Feingold.  

Under your plan, what if the private insurance companies refuse to cover people with pre-existing heatlh problems? We don't need the government creating a slush fund for HMOs that try to cherry-pick their customers.  

They've starved the government and now want us to go along and slash the government in response. You suggest this is what is needed just as they'd like.

We need to recover the revenues taken away when the treasury was raided on behalf of Bush's millionaire cronies and corporate pals, not slash government programs such as medicare and social security.

Raise taxes on the rich!

Start by extending Medicare to age 60,
the next year or so to age 55, then
down to age 50,
add all children to age 6,
then to age 12, then to age 18.

That lets the private insurance
companies do what they want
to do anyway -- cherrypick their
clients, limiting their exposure
to the young and employed.

Meanwhile, the hospital industry
lives off Medicare already. Can't
they survive with more Medicare
clients?

And if the private insurance
companies by then can't provide
inexpensive group coverage to
the young and employed, that
will be clear by the end of the
10-year phase-in. In that case,
extend Medicare to cover
everyone of every age.

Hey, Medicare is not the perfect
health insurance plan. But it covers
the basics, and everyone undersands
how it works.

I could stand to see a little tinkering
with Medicare, like adding some $10
or $20 co-pays. If the patient refuses
to pay $20 for a lab test, then the test
is not worth $20 to me as a taxpayer,
much less $100.

Hillary's plan was so damn complicated
no one could explain it, and no one
bought it.

And meanwhile let's improve Medicare
for everyone. And / or leave a role for
private employer plans as Medicare
wrap-around plans covering what
Medicare does not cover well -- mental,
dental, prescription drugs, etc.