Lessons from the Netherlands is an excellent article that discusses, well, the lessons we might learn from the Dutch efforts at reform.

When the Dutch embarked on this reform, those understanding health policy raised many red flags. Here we'll discuss only the basic premise that private plans are more effective in controlling costs than was the public/private dual system. After all, cost containment was given by the Dutch government as the primary reason for health financing reform.

What did those of us who were concerned about their model predict? We predicted that the private plans would not be able to control costs, that there would be consolidation of the private plans, and that health care would become even less affordable for the Dutch citizens.

After almost three years of this experiment, what has happened? Health care costs have continued to grow well in excess of the rate of inflation. Health insurers attempted to keep their premiums affordable in order to gain market share, but because of insurer losses, premium increases have been greater than would have been anticipated based on the market competition theory. In spite of these premium increases, insurer losses have been increasing. Insurers with less penetration in the marketplace are now facing the necessity of consolidation.

In another article in this same journal, Kieke Okma states, "... the trend of market concentration in Dutch health insurance and health care will likely continue. This might result in both higher prices and more-restricted access to health care services, both of which will not be too popular with Dutch patients and insured."

Try also reading Commonwealth on the Swiss and Dutch Systems

and this

which get into the weeds a bit on integrated, hybrid systems, and also contain links to other articles on the subject.

Uwe Reinhardt's How the World Balances Haalth Care Risk is another good read.

The health systems of Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany are frequently cited as potential models for a reformed American health system. All three countries offer their citizens a wide choice of health insurers -- none of which is a government-run health plan. Yet in all three countries full community rating is de rigueur.

Swiss citizens, for example, are required to purchase insurance coverage for a comprehensive health-benefit package from a large menu of private health insurance companies that compete for customers on the basis of the premium they charge for that coverage.

Profits cannot be earned on insurance for the basic package. Premiums do vary among competing insurers, but for a given insurer they can vary only by the deductible and coinsurance rates of the different policies. Neither the individual's health status nor age affects the premium charged the individual by a given insurer. Health insurers ending up with an older or sicker enrolled risk pool then receive compensation from a risk-equalization fund.

Similarly, Dutch citizens are mandated to purchase insurance coverage for a comprehensive benefit package from a menu of private for-profit or not-for-profit insurers.

Roughly half of the cost of this coverage is financed by a payroll tax -- that is, it is based roughly on ability to pay. The other half comes from competitively set premiums collected directly from those enrolled.

The payroll taxes are paid into a national risk-equalization fund that then pays a risk-adjusted amount to the insurance carrier chosen by a particular individual. Among health services researchers, this risk-adjustment mechanism has long been viewed as one of the most sophisticated in the world.

One huge problem with the anti-choice movement is the fact that women are often equated with children.  The vast majority of us are not children.  And frankly, as far as teaching kids to abstain, I'd rather also have them educated than not, so by the time they are adults they can make those decisions responsibly.  And yes, even young adults/teens should be equipped to make those decisions.

And a 100 million dollar cash reward for Osama...dead or alive.

And totally revamping our foreign policy...closing installations in the M.E. and elsewhere, ceasing to support Arab tyrants, becoming a true broker of peace instead of one in name only, a Manhattan Project-style investment in an alternative to oil.