Having been on both sides, both in jury trials, and arbitration, as a plaintiff, I would choose a jury over an arbitrator every time. At least with a jury you have a shot at convincing "real people," whereas, in arbitration, you really roll the dice in the choice of arbitrator. There are more incompetents than you might want to believe.

Also, while you have to pay your attorney in either case, with an arbitrator, you also have to pay his/her fees & expenses, which can run into many thousands of dollars.

Besides the things I've mentioned already, there are two other things why I don't like arbitration:

1. They simply start with a prejudice of compromise; they hardly ever award either side 100%, even if that side is 100% in the right. Their motto is "cut the baby in half," just out of principal, not based on the facts, or evidence.

2. Unless you're willing to shell out some really big bucks (besides for your attorney & the arbitrator) there isn't a stenographer, hence, no transcript. While there are certain guidelines as to how long an arbitrator may take to render a decision, they basically take as long as they want. And, if you've got an arbitrator who takes on too many cases, or is a mindless mediocrity, good luck to you. Facts and evidence you may have presented....are just simply fogotten.

In addition we don't have waiting lists for simple procdures and exams becasue we don't care how much it costs and allow several different people to offer CT's, xrays in small areas because it will all eventually get paid for.

Our system is more expensive not because we offer better and more expensive procedures than countries with single-payer; honestly, you give a truly distorted impression that single-payer countries just let people die rather than treat them.  Which should mean that the US should have really low mortality rates - but we don't.  We aren't even in the top 10 lowest rates.  How would you explain that?

We HAVE a market-based system that already rations care and hasn't been able to bring down costs, so you are essentially arguing to continue the current system, but make it ration more care than it is already doing.  Yeah, that makes sense - if you own stock in Big Pharma, or have an office on K Street.

Right now, in private insurance company offices all over this country, clerical workers are stamping "DENIED" on claim after claim after claim, making people jump through medical hoop after medical hoop before procedures and medications and tests will be authorized.  And they count on patients just giving up because they can't keep taking the time from work to make the phone calls and having the tests-bfore-they-will-approve-another-test, or paying the deductibles and co-pays.

Providers are devoting more time to haggling with insurance companies when they could be providing care.  They have two and three times the administrative staff to deal with the hundreds of different claim forms, costs which they pass on to the patients.

The system is sick - possibly termially ill - and the best some people can do is offer computerized medical records, cutting Medicare and Medicaid, medical co-ops and tort reform.  And taxing employer-provided health benefits.

What you are describing with Grandma's hip replacement is exactly what the insurance companies do all the time.

And you're wrong about the other procedures.  Insurance companies deny access to procedures such as CT scans all the time.

You are actually arguing for single payer.  You just don't realize it.

Second, the for-profit insurance system already costs us $350 billion/year in excess overhead (read: keeping Gulfstream in business). Once the rent being paid to the insurance companies is removed, US health care costs come into line.