What you dont seem willing to acknowledge is that what we are also doing for those 200+ million currently insured is to provide unprecedented security in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue (among other benefits)....and by most objective analyses, they wont see their health care costs continue to rise at the current unmanageable rate (over 100% in the last 10 years).

BTW, one reason for the delay for the Insurance Exchange for those 30 million more people (in addition to writing the regs) is to build greater capacity and efficiencies.

IMO...it is not a "blll just for the sake of a bill". I have said repeatedly that it is far from perfect, but what you guys wont acknowledge is that it provides real reform for the first time ever that will touch most Americans in a positive way.

And yet, those opposed still have never offered a better alternative.

Thanks, Merc. We are often on opposite sides of the question, but we can agree that this article makes a number of excellent points and some good suggestions. I would be interested in what Redux would say about it.

(Hint: Read the Atlantic article, Redux) ;)

Its an interesting article and offers a self-described generational solution (in very general terms and little in the way of details) that I would agree with in many respects.

Where I would disagree most is the author's suggestion to minimize the government role. Without regulation, IMO, it is a pipe dream to think that a free market approach would put consumer care above profit....be it insurance companies, hospitals or private practitioners.

And because the current system is so entrenched, I think it would be incredibly disruptive in the short-term and likely to be multi-generational, taking decades...far longer than the author suggests. And the article offers little in the way of policy proposals to address the short-term or the interim long-term period in order to get there from here.

SO my concerns is what to do in the meantime and I think the current proposals, beyond the immediate relief to those uninsured and greater security to those with employer-based insurance, also include some consumer-based remedies that move in the right direction (ie rewarding prevention, greater quality control, reducing systemic redundancies, greater information sharing on best practices, etc.)

Bottom line...if we were starting with a clean slate, it might be a good approach, even if it is bit "pie in the sky".

But that is not the case, and IMO, we need to address the shortcomings with the current system while at the same time, moving towards a more efficient and equitable "care over cost" system in the long term.

I agree with you on this. I also think our current system is so opaque that it is difficult to discern which practices, treatments, etc. are the most beneficial for patients.

I do see problems with government funded treatment, as well. For example, I am currently on medicare/medicaid. Medicaid will not cover prescriptions for many anti-anxiety drugs or sleep medications. When I came down with bronchitis, medicaid would not cover the cost of my cough syrup which contained codeine. I don't know if such limitations are a result of the war on drugs or some Puritanical refusal to cover certain medications. It makes no sense to me. I pay nothing for a drug that would cost over $200/month without insurance, yet must pay $20.00 for 30 halcion tabs (for sleep)? My generic anti-depressant is covered, but not my generic cough syrup? What?

The impact of the current tort reform is negligible. READ what I wrote - true tort reform. Not just an appeasing mention.
Thereby reducing the number of providers that will accept it = less providers for those covered.
There are virtually no benefits and the costs start immediately.
Don't tell me what I would and/or wouldn't do. You are getting to be an asshole - please stop.
I already listed them and do not care to do so again.
That you are, and a self admitted one.
more name calling - very nice. :headshake

You have not provided ONE fact to support any of the above..or you are just ignorant of the facts.

I provide facts and you call me a partisan....again.

Asshole.

Ahh, more name calling. Whats wrong with you? Did Santa skip your house or something? Enjoy your one-sided conversation. I'm out.

You're out?

What a surprise...thats what you do when you cant respond with facts.

Whats wrong with me?

I just got tired of my opinions being called partisan bullshit by you and Merc (not to mention the facts that I cite regarding the bills that you conveniently chose to ignore....like the fact that the bill will provide unprecedented security to 200+ million in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue...or the facts regarding cuts to MA providers, not patients.) while you consider your opinions to be more factual and less partisan.

And I got tired of turning the other cheek when you and Merc resorted to the endless cheap shots directed at me.

I had enough.....You want to play dirty. I'm in, dude.

You do provide facts. You seem to be knowledgable about the subject, perhaps more so than anyone here (above and beyond the dancers, even) and I appreciate your perspective.

I don't say this because I agree with everything: I say this to let you know that it's noticed. Problem is, those you are discussing with are just what you say, and your facts are irrelevant to them.

But, keep posting. Perhpas you'll be like earwax remover and eventually they'll hear a thing or two you say.

Well now that the whores of the Congress, Landrieu and Nelson among others, have made their sweetheart deals, the effect of that fall out comes out in numbers. They should rename it, "Health Insurance Corporation and Pharmaceutical Corporation Profit Protection Act of 2009."

States With Expanded Health Coverage Fight Bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/he...2&ref=politics

The Senate Postmortem, WSJ



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...877143186.html

I would really like to see all these "endless cheap shots."
I've intentionally NOT done that. Again, you want to lump me in with other posters. STOP IT.

Yea, don't get lumped in with me. :D

Let it go man. He just doesn't like people who challange the Demoncratic Party propaganda.

At least you admit it - Puts you 1/2 a step ahead of UG.
Seriously - there is enough we disagree upon that he needn't add all that stupid shit you post to any list of mine.

Oh bullshit.

This is the next step after avoiding any points: talk about how nice you are about it all.




Seriously? Oh well, at least you got merc to suck your dick again.

Oh, am I being a name-caller? Well, YES I am! I freely admit it. :lol2:

Oh, merc? It's challenge, not CHALLANGE. And, when you mean MORE THAN, as in TOO MUCH, it's T-O-O. Not TO MUCH. Unless you're going to a town called MUCH, in which case TO MUCH would be correct.

Maybe someone will learn something today after all.