QUOTE: There's no point in bragging about how swell healthcare is at the top, if you can't provide basic services to the guys at the bottom.

Exactly!

let me just  sum this  all up in a quick hit

America 2008 = late Roman empire

just a matter of time before we fall due to crooked and moronic Government

"How would you propose getting rid of it without making the stocks in those insurance companies worthless"

How is that an argument against implementing fully government financed healthcare (and eliminating most, though not all, private medical insurance) if the government financed system is better? The argument in favor of privately financed public services has always been that private enterprise can do it better, because in the private sector, ineffective actors fail, and should fail.

Any private company that cannot compete in its market will experience a devaluation of its stock, or see it become worthless, since it is perceived to have no future potential. One of the most frequently used arguments against "socialized" economies is that they artificially sustain non-viable "businesses" to the detriment of their overall economy.

If private insurance companies are artificially sustained to prevent the economic repercussions of the stock devaluation, how is that any different?

In a capitalist system, the appropriate response to "but that will render the stocks in the insurance companies worthless" is "so what?".

If a healthcare system based on private insurance is the best possible system for the US, then by all means it should continue, but if it is not, then it is irrelevant to anyone but the stockholders whether choosing the best system (which for the sake of argument might be fully government financed) causes financial ruin for those who would benefit from the implementation or continuation of an inferior system.

"To me the problem was bad doctors that were protected by other doctors and hospitals. They needed to police themselves, they didn't and now they are paying for it. Reward good doctors with lower cost malpractice insurance, like they do good drivers." 

Incorrect.  The current malpractice crisis- and it is a crisis that has severely compromised health care delivery in American- is primarily the result of disproportionate rewards and out-of-court settlements for non-negligent cases.  The latter is the result of the relative 'no-lose' scenario that some attorneys and litigants utilize while attempting to procure financial reward. 

While true negligence should always be addressed, it is not the cause of the present crisis.  Good doctors, which are the vast majority, cannot be rewarded with lower malpractice rates because it will not sustain the financial rewards given out by the current court system.  States that have enacted workable tort reform have shown a decrease in malpractice premiums.

"How would you propose getting rid of it without making the stocks in those insurance companies worthless"

-----

How is that an argument against implementing fully government financed healthcare (and eliminating most, though not all, private medical insurance) if the government financed system is better? ...

...In a capitalist system, the appropriate response to "but that will render the stocks in the insurance companies worthless" is "so what?".

So what?  There is a huge difference between a business failing, thus costing investors and the government seizing and entire industry and closing it down thus costing the investors.

All the pension plans, 401ks, etc. would be decimated.  So it's okay, to you, for the government to destroy the retirement funds of the poor and middle class?  The rich would shrug it off, take a deduction and make more money.  The poor and middle class couldn't do that.

Given that the economy is likely to be front and center for the immediate future, how does McCain's earlier admission that economics are not his strong suit effect his chances in the upcoming election?

I don't think so since Obama has no more experience than McCain in that regard.  The only thing either one can do is make sure they have the best economic advisors they can find.  The President can never been an expert in everything.  He just has to be smart enough to appoint the people who are.

QUOTE: All the pension plans, 401ks, etc. would be decimated.

If only for the sake of discussion....

Obviously, such a takeover wouldn't happen unannounced, overnight.  As far as pension plans go...government employees receive pensions, such as my mother who just retired from 30+ years of service with the Social Security Administration.  It's not unfeasable that some provision for absorption of existing pension plans within the health insurance companies into government pension plans could/would be worked out.  Likewise, since there would certainly be a significant amount of advance notice, 401k plans could be adjusted away from investment in the health insurance companies.