The big problem with the Harry and Louise ads is that it shows how little this issue means to Obama.  He's fine with throwing our chances for decent health care coverage out the window.  Eiither he's going to give us an inadequate health care plan that doesn't cover millions of people and won't work, or else (much less likely) he's going to belatedly realize the problems and then anything he tries to do to fix it -- the Rethugs and the insurance companies will throw his ads back at him, destroying any chance of universal health care we might have.

The truth is he really doesn't give a (bad word) whether not we have  universal health insurance or not.  He just wants to get elected.  Evidence:   just go to YouTube and look at the video in 2003 he made when he was running for the  U.S Senate, when, sounding just as convincing as he does now, he took the position that we HAD to have universal ONE-PAYER health care in this country and that it was those stupid fools in Washington who were keeping us from having it and that he'd get in there and fix that.  Yeah, right.

And, best of all, the subtle bird flicking?

I hate the car insurance comparison, because it's incorrect (and is a huge money giveaway). So let me say that unlike car insurance we will develop something or other as we age and have to be treated and need checkups.

The first component is the total cost of not insuring poor folks. It's theoretically cheaper.

Since poor income is limited and highly constrained by lack of power, they are more likely to not have insurance (the risk of health problems vs rent vs putting money away for something special).  The problem is, if you are poor and don't treat/checkup proactively, it costs more and/or kills/damages you when something happens.

That means that if you don't or can't pay up front, someone pays more later. Usually much more, especially if ambulances are involved and/or if you die and thereby cannot pay, don't contribute to the economy, etc.  

And lets be clear about who pays: the larger economy.  If you can barely afford rent and food, the hospital will be eating your bills, the charity will be paying for your wheelchair, etc etc.  And you may, again, be left unable to work/participate in life and on disability.  As an FYI, I doubt it's proven anywhere but I'd bet money that low income disease control/testing centers save us money.

The second component is that rich/middle class folks would basically opt out of insurance ("taxes ")and thereby make this a regressive program.

If rich/middle class opt out of insurance, then they effectively remove themselves from taxation.  They can afford, for the most part, to play the risk game with little down side.  And it might be cheaper for them to pay out of pocket in the current system (less forms/paperwork, etc).

He is against single payer universal health care now that he's running for President because if he was still for it, the health care industry would spend big, big money to ensure he doesn't get elected.

You wonder about the integrity of someone, like Ezra Klein, who is willing to overlook something that is so important in order to support Obama.

I have read, reread and researched in every way that was available to me about the various health care plans. I do not have health care now and am not eligible for Medicare for another year. I've been holding my breath for a long time because I know that any illness, even one that is not  catastrophic could very well cause me to lose my house.

Obama's plan is a sick joke. I care about children too but what will my children and grandchildren have to do when my flabby old butt is thrown out of my house because I need gall bladder surgery or the like?

And fortunately my granddaughters know what can happen to someone young when they don't have insurance. One of the girls was hit by a drunken, uninsured a$$hole and she is still paying off her medical bills 8 years later. Being young and healthy doesn't protect from something like that.

Some kind of medicare for everyone is what I want, need, and insist upon in any candidate I support.

*especially after the eventual passage of the expansion that Bush vetoed

having  mandates for the entire country is a completely different ballgame, and it works in several countries.

Japan, Switzerland, Korea, UK, Canada, Germany, Taiwan...all with mandates, all with higher life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates and resounding patient satisfaction.

The Taiwan program is especially interesting because it came about comparatively recently, and they investigated all existing plans and cherry picked the best way to create theirs.  I believe the Swiss one was formed back in the 1980s--the vote to authorize it was quite slim, but now it is overwhelmingly popular.  Again, both mandated.