Harry Boy

She slaps Bush around also so there's something for everybody..

Today:
I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.
Obama's healthcare horror | Salon

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

Patters

There's no rush at all. The issue has been debated and researched since the 1970s. Now, we're at the nuts and bolts stage where the poilticians negotiate a compromise to get enough votes.

mikey

I don't recall any national debate on nationalizing the U.S. health care system in the 1970's or even the 1980's.


.

Patters

Kennedy pushed it in the '70s, and it actually got some traction. Hillary Clinton pushed it in the 1990s. Truman and FDR also proposed national health care, but I don't know much about their proposals at all. While it's true not much happened in the '80s, the fact is the issue is very well vetted.

BelichickFan

The American people don't want this bill.

The people do want :

Insurance help for those unable to pay for it.
Lower costs where possible.
Insurance companies not being able to squirm out of paying for those they cover.

That's about it. We don't want this beast.

Harry Boy

Why don't they let the American People VOTE ON IT in November, a simple Yes/No vote, boy wouldn't that be something.

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

Patters

Isn't that pretty much what the bill provides? It provides help for those who can't afford insurance, lower costs, and makes it more difficult for insurance companies to squirm out of covering some one. But, to do all that, you have to spell it out to some degree. Take a look at the actual bill:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_234372.html

I think an honest look at the bill will eliminate any notion that it was made up on the fly or quickly glued together without thought. Much of the bill deals with the logistics of implementing the plan, both from an economic and administrative point of view. Indeed, a lot of the projected savings comes from administrative standardization, so the bill not only has to spell out what that means, but it has to require it.

BelichickFan

Get rid of the public option and I would possibly be OK with it. That is the elephant in the room that I am not willing to accept because the obamans want it to have an uneven playing field so it can put insurance companies out of business.

I want tort reform which isn't in the bill.
I want restrictions on interstate insurance to be lifted which isn't in the bill.

Patters

The public option in my opinion is key. The insurance industry will do fine. Let's suppose you opted for the public option, and then saw that you buy additional insurance for a reasonable price that would cover, e.g., experimental treatment, private hospital room, rehab treatment at a private hospital, etc. would you consider that? I think the public option will result in insurance companies offering enhancement to it as well as offering their own insurance policies that offer some nice perks.

There's a legitimate philosophical disagreement. The belief is that you force hospitals to improve and doctors to change behaviors by inflicting economic pain. The area, I think you really have an issue with, is medical malpractice. But, how do you propose punishing a doctor who amputates the wrong leg of someone because he had a few drinks at lunch? Do you want to protect him? Why?

Part of them problem is with the jury system. Sometimes juries and courts do strange things -- they acquit the guilty, convict the innocent, impose outlandish punishments. But, I don't know what the answer is that. The jury system still seems to be the best. I think the Swedish jury systems uses civilian experts, rather than just anyone, but I'm not sure that's any better than what we have.

I don't know anything about that. But, wouldn't a public policy address what you're talking about? A key benefit of a public policy would probably be that it would be the same benefits for all states. I would think private insurance companies would have to match that as a baseline benefit. But, maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue?

BelichickFan

A public option is a dead option to me. I don't want them competing on an uneven playing field. I don't want that playing field putting insurance companies out of business. If I don't like my insurance company I want to be able to change it; if we're stuck with the government we have to accept what they decide, with insurance if I don't like a decision I can look elsewhere.

Here's an article about interstate insurance :

McCain Is Right On Interstate Health Insurance - WSJ.com

I also think health insurance should be like car insurance, for bigger things. Car insurance doesn't cover oil changes or air filters. The high deductible Health Savings Account is a great plan (I can't get it where I live) where insurance only covers the big ticket items (so it's a lot cheaper) and you put pre tax money in your HSA that can accumulate over time to pay for smaller stuff like run of the mill doctor's visits.

Google whole foods insurance plan or something along those lines to see the HDHSA in action.