How about removing the insurance companies from the equation entirely?

Exactly.  Couldn't agree more.  All Clinton and others are doing is extending the current system and fostering more dependence, not less, on health insurance. Their vision of Universal Health Care is "insurance for all", which does not necessarily translate to "health care for all", and it won't really fix the problems.   The third party payor system is in many respects the culprit of the current health care mess in this country.

A more progressive approach would not be Universal Health Care but a National Health Care program, which is Socialized Medicine (sorry, there is really no way around it).    Yes, this is government sponsored, but that doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing.  There are options.  For one, it could be administered (and probably should be) at the state, not federal level.  There can be opting in, opting out options for providers and hospitals, but the bottom line would be there would always be health care providers and hospitals that are fully supported by the system and to which any citizen could seek health care, with no or minimal out of pocket expense.  You bring your health care card to your participating physician...he or she runs it through the machine to get their reimbursement from the state agency, same with hospitals.  If you go to a Plastic surgeon to look pretty, no it probably won't be covered, but essential services will be covered and available for all.  You won't get a private room at the hospital either, if you don't have additional employer subsidies, but really....it will still mean that if you are unemployed, self-employed etc...you will get health care, no questions asked.  There will be some degree of rationing, for example certain medications, procedures and tests will have either out of pocket components to their availability, or have certain restrictions, but still...everybody will have access to essential health care.  I have not heard a single candidate propose a Socialized plan...