I’d like to see the stats by state, normalized for the long-term care population.

From wikipedia:

“Medicaid payments currently assist nearly 60 percent of all nursing home residents and about 37 percent of all childbirths in the United States. The Federal Government pays on average 57 percent of Medicaid expenses.”

Most HIV therapy is also paid by Medicaid.

We can’t have seniors or the poor who rely on the federal government for health care all of a sudden lose that care in a transition. That’s priority one.

But we need to shift back towards manageable populations. For more evidence, look at the discrepancy between what each state spends on Medicaid. We, as is our custom under Democratic rule, are among the highest. (see this book for some stats.)

So what? It is even more amazing that they can achieve their levels of health care without the economies of scale that are available to the US (should we choose to take advantage of them).

3) Most of the innovation in pharma, biotech & procedural medicine comes from our system.

Somewhat true. I’m not sure prescription drug commercials, or non-negotiable drug prices, are innovations to be proud of.

If we would reform our system to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid and revert those monies and requirements for coverage back to the states

I am trying to keep an open mind and understand how this would benefit anybody.

First of all, many states are receiving more in Federal Medicaid dollars than they are sending to Washington. And Medicare, the poorer states could not afford at all. So you are talking about transfer payments from wealthier states to poorer states. Which is what is occurring now. That is OK with me, but are you saying there should be no strings attached to the money, but we should keep sending it?

Some background facts here.

1) Each of the European countries has only between 40 and 80 million people to manage in their systems. If we would reform our system to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid and revert those monies and requirements for coverage back to the states, you would have a much more manageable situation and a greater likelihood of long-term, sustainable outcomes.

2) Europe’s combined GDP is less than ours.

3) Most of the innovation in pharma, biotech & procedural medicine comes from our system.

So it’s not as easy as you say.

The others, however, are structurally unsound. And their structures are not properly addressed in the current health care bills.

Hmmm.. you did say Senate.. my bad.

Hold tight Harry.

The only meaningful debate for Social Security is on two numbers: How high to set the taxable income cap, and where to peg the means testing.

Medicare and Medicaid are hostage to overall medical costs, which are being addressed by the current health care bills. That is where Republicans should get their bipartisanship on if they are serious.