I tried to figure out your source.  It was some organization called "DemocracyData".  I have no idea who they are and they didn't go out of their way to inform me, either....hmmmm.  Looks like a lobbyist firm.

There have been some studies on electronic medical records that not only show little cost savings, but some serious problems.  I would point you to this article, that suggests to me that it is premature to make blanket statements about the benefits of electronic medical records.  There are not enough providers using the technology, the systems themselves need more scrutiny and oversight, with both patient safety and information security being a concern.

And then there's the cost and implementation of the technology.  Yes, we know all progress comes with up-front costs, but I've cited, below, from the article linked, an example of what is currently happening with electronic records systems, the huge actual cost that will be incurred and the negative effect on patient care and utilization of medical providers.  It's all well and good to say that every new system has to work out the bugs and eventually will save money and lives, but what about in the meantime?

Outside the United States, countries further along the digital curve have experienced major problems with American-made health IT systems.

In Britain, a $20 billion program to digitalize medicine across the National Health Service is five years behind schedule and heavily over budget. A British parliamentary committee in January criticized the vendor, Cerner, as "not providing value for money."

Sarah Bond, a Cerner spokeswoman, said patient safety had improved and errors had dropped at U.S. hospitals that used Cerner products.

Cerner's stock price has risen 122 percent since February. Shares in Allscripts, another major health IT player whose chief executive, Glen E. Tullman, served on Obama's campaign finance committee, rose by 126 percent over the same period.

But rising share prices have not always translated into better care.

"It's been a complete nightmare," said Steve Chabala, an emergency room physician at St. Mary Mercy Hospital in Livonia, Mich., which switched to electronic records three years ago. "I can't see my patients because I'm at a screen entering data."

Last year, his department found that physicians spent nearly five of every 10 hours on a computer, he said. "I sit down and log on to a computer 60 times every shift. Physician productivity and satisfaction have fallen off a cliff."

As far as administrative overhead, private insurance has that one pretty much covered, don't you think?  Not only do insurance companies have significant overhead, which reduces the amount that can be allocated to patient care, but the proliferation of so many companies, all with their own forms and paperwork and procedures, means the overhead of providers is much larger than it needs to be, which means those costs have to be passed on to patients, and costs spiral out or control.  

When insurance companies talk about "cost-effective treatment," that often translates into denial of service, and given the huge salaries of top executives, the money spent on lobbying, the contributions to political PACs, it is impossible to conclude that these efficiencies are accruing to the benefit of subscribers; it is simply insulting to the intelligence of the average individual to suggest that patient health and outcomes are a greater priority for private companies than profit - they are in business to make money, after all.

When I was at the doctor last week, there was a sign up listing the insurance that is no longer accepted.  When I inquired, in a just-out-of-curiosity way, why they no longer dealt with them, the answer was, "well, some of them just take forever to pay, or they deny everything and make us jump through all kinds of hoops to get paid, or their reimbursement rates are so low we really can't cover the cost of filing the claims, much less paying the practice."   What does that mean for those who have the insurance that isn't being accepted?  It means their choices are limited, often relegating them to providers who have to herd many more patients through their doors in order to make money, which means doctors have less time to spend with patients, which means the care itself may not be what it should.

The fact is, the American public does not even need health insurance, nor do we need banks, another massive capitalistic blood sucking leach on our economy and the middle class. When we pool our resources with credit unions, the profits are returned to the membership. No CEOs, no investors demanding high returns, no more risk than you'd have at a bank. The only reason banks can even compete with credit unions is because the government gives them competitive advantages (cough-bailout).

The same is true with healthcare. A primary purpose of government is allow us to pool resources for the common good. We build roads, we try to protect the environment and our health, we defend ourselves in wars (obviously these goals need some work). Healthcare is no different from other government services. Not that we need the government to be our mommy, but changing the for-obscene-profit business model is the key to providing good healthcare at reasonable cost.

If we wanted to (and if a few hundred million of us demanded this of our elected leaders), we could expand our currently existing federal single payer systems to include all Americans on a fee basis. No insurance companies needed, no obscene CEO overhead, no denial of coverage because you chose to give your daughter one of your kidneys, etc.

Other advantages of phasing out reliance on the insurance industry by switching to opt-in government healthcare are:
1)    No new systems development costs, just replicate the VA or Medicare or Medicaid systems already in existence.
2)    Coverage rules are already in place, as well as a process to modify those rules.
3)    Each person or company makes the choice to go with the government program or pay more for regular private insurance that denies coverage whenever possible.
4)    The opt-in means political buy-in.  People who choose the government care are supporting the system by choice, not by law. When they see how well it works, the fight is over.
5)    There's no illegal alien coverage issue, as there is and will be with the Obama plan. That's the area where the "Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act" will get the most criticism because it amounts to charging the middle class to pay for free welfare for lawbreakers. It'll be a key reason for the moderate's backlash against our progressive agenda for the next 10-30 years. However, an opt-in model for currently existing systems is automatically restricted to citizens. Hence, no backlash.

and cioppino and grilled mussels and seafood marinara...