Quote :

"This is exactly why I don't want government involvement increased, because the moment you make something about politics, you can no longer have a reasonable discussion about the topic..."

I totally agree with this, political arguments are so frequently filled with fallacious comparisons, over generalizations, and party line propaganda.

For example, it does no good to say health care could be run efficiently with a gov't option, just look at USPS nor does it do any good to say look at maine: A state run system and a nation postal carrier are significantly different what might happen at the national level. These may provide hints but there is no reason to think they would be similar enough to make a useful comparison.

And all the rhetoric about the private sector being more efficient is based on a market approach that doesnt hold true in healthcare economics, as per the article i posted above. Im not saying the government should run the whole thing, but this belief that the market will just sort it out is an overgeneralization.

Also, there really is a moral issue here. I know you meant to dismiss the charge that people against reform are anti poor folks but seriously, what do we want our health care system to do, continue to reap huge profits for a few people or actually serve the needs of Americans?

10/4/2009 11:15:24 AM

Quote :

"Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson generated conservative anger with a speech last night in which he said, in regard to the GOP health care plan, "Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick." "

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/30/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5354012.shtml

10/4/2009 12:29:56 PM

Quote :

"A state run system and a nation postal carrier are significantly different what might happen at the national level."

how the fuck do you figure, when this is almost exactly what the current proposals are about? It shows exactly why the "pre-existing conditions" argument is pure rubish!

Quote :

"Also, there really is a moral issue here. I know you meant to dismiss the charge that people against reform are anti poor folks but seriously, what do we want our health care system to do, continue to reap huge profits for a few people or actually serve the needs of Americans?"

Care to offer any sort of proof for your claim that the health care providers or insurers are "reaping huge profits?"

10/4/2009 4:16:21 PM

Quote :

"Also, there really is a moral issue here. I know you meant to dismiss the charge that people against reform are anti poor folks but seriously, what do we want our health care system to do, continue to reap huge profits for a few people or actually serve the needs of Americans? "

Given that our current health system serves the needs and desires of a good chunk of Americans, I would say that we want the current system as much as possible and to patch the things which make it fail to serve the Americans that it doesn't. For example, eliminating the tax break for employers providing health care (or conversely provide the same tax break if they just give you HealthCare Bux™ to spend on your own coverage). We could also encourage people to switch to viewing health insurance as real insurance rather than cheap health care, very few family doctors would stay in business long if they charged their patients the full $200-$300 they charge for a 10 minute visit. In fact, I would bet that if you really sat down and thought about it, most health care that people take for things other than emergencies is primarily elective, at least in terms of who provides the service, so encouraging people to shop around for their doctor would do wonders to combat the rising costs of medical care.

As to handling the "pre-existing condition" thing, we as a people should start demanding that our insurance companies cover the conditions they insure against for as long as we have the condition. If you get cancer under BCBS coverage, then BCBS should pay for your cancer treatment until it's done, regardless of whether you wind up on other insurance, since they were insuring you against cancer at the time you were diagnosed.

Not only would this solve the pre-existing condition problem in terms of you getting new coverage (your new company wouldn't have to pay your cancer treatment) but it would also encourage insurance companies NOT to drop you after contracting a long term illness as they will still be paying for you, but receive no revenue if they drop your coverage. This would be one place you could get the government involved, and might actually do some good without screwing things over.

10/4/2009 4:58:10 PM

Quote :

"As to handling the "pre-existing condition" thing, we as a people should start demanding that our insurance companies cover the conditions they insure against for as long as we have the condition. If you get cancer under BCBS coverage, then BCBS should pay for your cancer treatment until it's done, regardless of whether you wind up on other insurance, since they were insuring you against cancer at the time you were diagnosed. "

I absofuckinglutely agree.

10/4/2009 5:00:42 PM

^^ wow! that's a fantastic idea! I'm surprised no one's ever proposed it before or if they have, I'm surprised it hasn't ever gotten any traction.

10/4/2009 5:03:18 PM

it's obvious why it never got any traction... Your friends, the lobbyists. I've thought that very concept myself, though

10/4/2009 5:04:31 PM

I've mentioned the idea a couple times in this and other threads, never really heard anyone else mention it though (I'm sure someone has). As for why it has no traction, I can think of a number of immediate reasons that make it dead in the water politically.

1) It's extremely straightforward, no real way to word it to increase government power (aside from the authority to demand business be conducted a certain way, but compared to current government involvement, this is an improvement).

2) Shifts existing power towards the individual consumer rather than businesses or the government, neither the insurance companies, nor the government want this.

3) Is a solution that doesn't require mama government making it bad for people wanting a big government solution but does indeed require some government pushing to be enforceable (either by law or judicial proceeding) making it bad for uber free marketers.

4) It's a reasonable simple compromise, we can't have those in government.

There are also a few logistical problems I can think of.

1) It will increase the cost of insurance. Without the knowledge that they can easily get rid of a liability, insurance companies will have to raise rates to compensate for increased risk. For this to be an effective solution, there's a good chance that we will have to move to a HSA / true insurance model, where routine care is paid for by the individual

2) Keeping track of which insurance companies you need to bill to get reimbursed. With the incentive to keep you as a customer, I imagine people will switch insurance less, but you will still wind up in situations where you need to keep track of multiple different insurances to get compensated. However, I'm quite positive that if such an event becomes common, we'll see insurance "consolidators" who for a fee (or a percentage of your reimbursement), will keep track of all this for you and compensate you directly.

10/4/2009 5:45:24 PM

Here is the only problem I see with your idea.

Say you have health insurance, but a new treatment comes out that wasnt covered in your original plan. Would you still require the insurance company to rewrite your plan to cover the new treatment? And would you still be paying the original company premiums?

10/4/2009 7:22:36 PM

Well there's a few ways you can solve that. My two favorites are:

1) The company doesn't have to but can if they choose, otherwise they pay UCR of the treatment they would pay for and customer pays difference. New treatments, while expensive at first, tend to come out because they're more effective and eventually more cost effective. I imagine any insurance company paying on a chronic disease will happily pay for any new treatments that prove to be more cost effective.

I like this because it's simplest and leave room for the patient to act freely while not forcing a company to cover a treatment that falls outside their guidelines.

2) The company must cover only treatments that their cheapest plan which covers the disease would cover, however it must still be covered under the original terms of treatment.

I like this less because now we're getting into the mess of tracking current plan coverages and such.

As to paying the original company premiums, only if you're still a customer. That's how this plan encourages companies to keep chronic patients, and it's also how insurance should work. If I pay you money to insure myself against getting sick or a chronic disease, then if I get sick under your coverage, you should pay for those treatments until I'm cured or dead.

If you get into a massive car wreck today and smash up your limited edition hand made ferrari, even if your car insurer drops your coverage tomorrow, they still pay for your car until it's fixed, same if your house gets blown away in a hurricane. Why should health insurance be any different? You insure against contracting a sickness within a given time frame, if you get sick, then the insurance company pays.

Of course, there will be fights over whether X treatment is really a result of Y injury I'm sure, but is that really any different or worse than fighting over pre-existing conditions now?

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/4/2009 11:35:31 PM

http://www.militantcentrist.com/healthcare/single-payer-health-care-by-the-numbers/

Quote :

"Japan spends approximately 8.23% of its GDP on its nationalized health-care system, which is a blend of government and business-funded programs. That’s just $351.5 billion in nominal US dollars. If we took Japan’s health care system, picked it up whole-hog, plunked it down in Kansas, and then scaled it to proportion with our population, we could achieve true, 100% universal health care with just $839 billion. So, we can reasonably infer that Japan’s public health-care system is about 331% more efficient than America’s present privatized system."

Quote :

"Canada spends 10.40% of its GDP on its health care system, totalling $132.84 billion in expenses. Extrapolating Canada’s stats into the US population, if we used Canada’s system, we could provide universal health care at a cost of approximately $1.209 trillion. That means Canada’s system is approximately 229.79% more efficient than America’s."

Quote :

"The UK spends 8.56% of its GDP on its health care system, totalling $182.33 billion in expenses. Extrapolating the UK’s stats into the US population, if we used the UK’s system, we could provide universal health care at a cost of $908.96 billion. That means the UK’s system is 305.69% more efficient than America’s."

Quote :

"France spends 11.3% of its GDP on its health care system, totalling $289.28 billion in expenses. France’s health care system is ranked by the World Health Organization as the best in the world, incidentally, but we’re sticking to simple math for this summary, and so we’ll leave it at that. Extrapolating France’s stats into the US population, if we used the French system, we could provide universal health care at a cost of $1.428 trillion. That means the France’s system is 194.55% more efficient than America’s."

I can't speak to the source, but the numbers are all verifiable. Basically, we could throw a dart at a map of industrialized nations, pick the health care system of whichever one we hit, and we'd be better off than we are now.

10/5/2009 10:15:45 AM

^^all that would do would make the current insurance claim everything was caused by a pre-existing condition and your old insurance co. claim that it's a new condition. and while the companies are litigating that, you go broke/die.

10/5/2009 10:44:40 AM

^ Which is really no different than how our system is now, with the exception that currently, if you do have a prexisting condition, you will find it difficult or downright impossible to get insurance because your old company won't have to pay and your new company will. Under my idea, your old company has incentives to keep you as they will be paying for some things regardless, and new companies have incentives to take you because there will be some things they won't have to pay for. Additionally, you can require that such debates get handled between the insurance companies, much the same way your car insurance is for an accident.

10/5/2009 1:37:36 PM

Under your plan why would a consumer who began diagnosed with a chronic illness under one insurance not then switch insurance companies following the diagnosis. The reason being the insurance company under which an individual fell ill would be forced to pay the bill and to avoid the higher premiums that would be a result of the insurers increase in costs the individual could then switch to an insurer who could provide them with a lower rate since they would not have to bear the weight of this chronic ailment.

seems to me in that under your plan there is a lot of room for lost revenue due to easy manipulation of the system.

10/5/2009 3:40:12 PM

Quote :

"I can't speak to the source, but the numbers are all verifiable. Basically, we could throw a dart at a map of industrialized nations, pick the health care system of whichever one we hit, and we'd be better off than we are now."

That assumes that our systems are comparable in almost all areas of effectiveness. Which they are not. Which is, you know, one of the main arguments against socialized medicine. Thank you for being a retard

10/5/2009 6:50:11 PM

Quote :

"Under your plan why would a consumer who began diagnosed with a chronic illness under one insurance not then switch insurance companies following the diagnosis. The reason being the insurance company under which an individual fell ill would be forced to pay the bill and to avoid the higher premiums that would be a result of the insurers increase in costs the individual could then switch to an insurer who could provide them with a lower rate since they would not have to bear the weight of this chronic ailment. "

I suppose that could be a problem, but I think there are a number of factors working against that.

1) Laziness. It's a hassle to switch insurance companies, and I imagine most people wont just to save $10/month.

2) MAD. If every insurance company starts offering low cost plans to people for whom they don't have to cover chronic conditions, eventually every insurance company will be covering chronic conditions and not bringing in enough money, which will require them to raise their rates or die.

3) Your existing insurance company has every incentive now to try and keep you, including not hiking your premiums.

4) Just because a new company won't have to pay for a specific treatment doesn't mean that you as a customer don't represent a higher risk now that you have a chronic condition. Just because BCBS won't have to pay for your cancer treatments doesn't mean they won't be paying for your pneumonia as a result of your weakened immune system.

5) Insurance hopping can find you black listed. Just because new companies won't have to cover a chronic condition doesn't mean that you'll be able to get new affordable insurance. I would imagine if an insurance company took a look at your health history and saw you dropped your insurance every time you got sick, you would quickly find no one willing to take you on.

10/5/2009 7:28:20 PM

This may have been posted already, but here it is again:

Quote :

"[V]ideo of Louisiana GOP Congressman John Fleming explaining his House Resolution 615 that would call on House members who vote for Government Health Care to choose that option for themselves and their family."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrwS_FOFjpA

10/5/2009 7:41:08 PM

The only problem I see with the comparison between auto and health insurance under your system, 1337, is that your car can be totaled. Not exactly a thrilling prospect for your health insurance company to say that you are only worth 500 bux, so fuck off...

10/5/2009 8:38:32 PM

Well many (most?) health insurance plans have lifetime maximums too, so "totaling" a person is not an unusual concept. But the comparison to auto insurance was really only about the issue of old insurance claiming something isn't covered by them, and new insurance doing the same thing. Basically, if that truly becomes a problem, you can make it so that the insurance companies duke it out between themselves much the way auto companies do now.

10/5/2009 11:02:42 PM

Quote :

"According to AMA’s National Health Insurance Report [convert this document.] Card, Medicare denies 6.85 percent of its claims, higher than any private insurer (Aetna was second, denying 6.80 percent of its claims), and more than double any private insurer’s average."

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 5:35 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/7/2009 5:34:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvEJBAnmNu0

is anyone angry at cnn for this?

10/7/2009 9:10:07 PM

Meh. It's evident the writers of the song took particular care to keep from taking a side on the issue. The message is to support healthcare reform. I think that's a non-partisan message, or at least it should be. If it was to support or oppose the public option, I would have a problem with that. They do show entertainment pieces on CNN, so singing kids doesn't necessarily bother me, either.

10/7/2009 10:38:26 PM

fox news is serving it up as "cnn supports indoctrination" even though its a private school.

the kids wrote all of their songs btw and picked the covers too.

10/7/2009 10:52:54 PM

10/8/2009 12:35:30 AM

Quote :

"Meh. It's evident the writers of the song took particular care to keep from taking a side on the issue."

Really? Touting the "47 million" number is hardly "not taking a side."



Snark, how can that be? The only people that have a motivation to deny claims are the evil insurance companies because they want to make a buck while grandma drowns in her own spittle!

[Edited on October 8, 2009 at 6:57 AM. Reason : ]

10/8/2009 6:55:36 AM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Senate Finance Committee will vote on its $829 billion health care bill next Tuesday, according to a Senate Democratic leadership aide."

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/08/key-health-care-vote-set-for-next-tuesday/

10/8/2009 10:41:58 AM

This is the best compromise idea that's been floated so far. I hope it makes it into the final bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/dems-discussing-public-op_n_313054.html

Basically, you get a robust national (that's the key) public option supported by the most populous and economically powerful states, and you put red state GOP legislators in a very uncomfortable position. It's actually political genius.

[Edited on October 8, 2009 at 11:31 AM. Reason : :]

10/8/2009 11:22:55 AM

That is pure crap. Yes, that would help the local special interest problem, but it doesn't fix the "this is a terrible idea being made worse" problem.

A great idea would be introducing a national private option, introducing some competition to the regulators. We could cut a huge chunk out of the current health-care costs if we just brought the cost of insurance in California down to the cost in Wisconsin.

[Edited on October 8, 2009 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/8/2009 11:48:04 AM

Drop the act and say it: "fuck poors"

10/8/2009 11:49:10 AM

yea because it would be impossible to actually lower costs and pay for poor people at the same time.

10/8/2009 11:55:52 AM

No, it's okay. Just say it. Give me a second of honesty.

10/8/2009 1:42:53 PM

yea lets just spend a shitload of money so that in 30 years when theres nothing left we can look back and say "well atleast we helped a few poor folks for a while".

If you want to help poor people you need to lower their energy costs, lower the cost of healthcare (actual healthcare, not insurance), give them better access to better education, and then once all thats done give them handouts to make up the remaining difference.

But you're right. Fixing the cause is fucking stupid lets throw money at the symptoms.

10/8/2009 1:54:45 PM

Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with what you're saying. I just wish some of you dishonest motherfuckers would come out and say what you're thinking.

10/8/2009 2:22:23 PM

honestly, i don't want to pay for someones health care. (that i'm not related to)

i know the whole 'if everyone pays and everyone is covered costs go down and the general well being of the country goes up' mantra, but honestly i think my taxes are gonna go up more than whatever piddily amount the costs of healthcare will decline.

in fact i think my taxes are going to keep going up while simultaneously providing me with less benefit(s),service(s), and protection(s) in the long run.

so why the hell would i want to speed up that process?

10/8/2009 3:22:53 PM

Quote :

"According to The Washington Post, "[The Senate Finance Bill] would raise $200 billion more by levying a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost insurance policies -- the 'Cadillac' plans that cost more than $8,000 for individuals or $21,000 for a family." The House plans to slap a "surtax" on income above $500,000 rather than impose the "Cadillac" tax."

http://tinyurl.com/yjy8act

So if I get this straight . . . we want you to have the best health care you can afford, but if you can afford really nice health care, we're going to penalize you for it.

10/9/2009 5:53:55 PM

Quote :

" What the CBO does not highlight, however, is that Sen. Baucus cooked the books. Under the Baucus plan, revenue enhancement (taxes) goes into effect immediately. Coverage does not kick in for two and one-half years. So, to make the numbers work, Sen. Baucus has to collect ten years of revenue to cover seven and one-half years of cost. ‘Puter thought the whole thing smelled a little fishy, so he gave Sleestak and abacus, a quill and some parchment and set him on the CBO math. Using the above numbers, Sleestak calculates that projected revenues will generate $910 billion over 10 years. Outflows will be $829 billion over 7.5 years. Based on Sleestak’s math, that’s an average yearly inflow of $91 billion and an average yearly outflow of $110.5 billion, or a average annual deficit of $19.5 billion each year the benefits are actually paid."

http://www.gormogons.com/2009/10/stupid-accounting-tricks-health-care.html

10/10/2009 9:40:24 AM

are the payouts still tied to the consumer price index so that costs will stay in check in the future?

10/10/2009 9:53:58 AM

^^^ class warfare, what?

^^ and all of that is under the assumption that the actual outlays are as projected. How did that work out for Medicare projections in 1965?

10/10/2009 2:44:35 PM

Quote :

"^^^ class warfare, what?"

Only leftists engage in class warfare.

*deregulates and sits back as the rich fleece the living shit out of this country*

10/10/2009 2:55:01 PM

Quote :

"honestly, i don't want to pay for someones health care. (that i'm not related to) "

You are already doing this directly, if you have insurance, and you’re doing this indirectly whenever you use health services if you don’t have insurance.

^ it’s okay for the gov. to look out for corporations, but the minute they try to do anything for the people, it’s crossing the line.

[Edited on October 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2009 2:55:14 PM

if only the gov't were looking out for the people, you might have a point. No, the gov't only looks out for the special interests, including corporations, all while claiming to look out for the people.

Quote :

"deregulates and sits back as the rich fleece the living shit out of this country"

it's the same fucking thing. or do you really think that regulation is for the good of the people?

10/10/2009 3:06:37 PM

All regulation is for the good of someone. You just need to dig a little deeper to find out who. For example, the current health-care bill would be good for the insurance companies, the hospitals, doctors, and their accountants.

If you think health-care is expensive now, just wait until it is mandatory.

Quote :

"...marginal tax rates would go up by about 22 percentage points for all families whose income was between 100 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10642/SFC_Subsidies_Penalties_10-09.pdf

[Edited on October 10, 2009 at 11:47 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/10/2009 11:41:05 PM

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098

this type of shit should not fly.

10/12/2009 7:43:38 AM

^ The baby was not refused insurance, their current insurer covered him. It is only a lower cost insurer that refused them, which is probably how they manage the lower cost thing. If it was illegal to turn down anyone then the would simply stop being the lower cost insurer. After-all, while the law under consideration would force insurance companies to accept customers against your will, we are still a somewhat free country, so the law does not yet force you to be an insurance company.

[Edited on October 12, 2009 at 9:35 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/12/2009 9:29:36 AM

So could someone summarize what the state of things is?

My impressions:
- We will have a new public option
* I will not be eligible for the public option (i heard like 85% of ppl won't be eligible, I'm sure i'm one of them)
- The pre-existing conditions stuff will be eliminated
- I will be required to have health care


I think that's a relatively fair assessment. I don't like it. I mean, why should I ever support a public option or any politician that talks about a public option if it won't be offered to me? And why would I want to be forced to get health care? Maybe I wouldn't care if you forced someone else to provide me with health care, but that's not what it sounds like. And the pre-existing condition elimination could be a good thing, but only if the government did enough to support health care such that my options won't be dwindled by that provision (like a public option), and honestly, it looks like they will be.

So I would greatly appreciate someone telling me how I'm wrong.

10/12/2009 9:54:48 AM

Quote :

"I think that's a relatively fair assessment. I don't like it. I mean, why should I ever support a public option or any politician that talks about a public option if it won't be offered to me?"

Well, first off, your whole premise is wrong. You're right that most people won't be eligible for the public option, but you won't "supporting" those who are in any way. Every single version of the public option is paid for by premiums of the people who enroll in it. Additionally, they are also required to be actuarially sound and not subsidized by tax dollars. These are the little details that most opponents of the public option fail to realize/understand.

Quote :

"And why would I want to be forced to get health care? Maybe I wouldn't care if you forced someone else to provide me with health care, but that's not what it sounds like."

The bottom line is that people without health insurance cost all tax payers money. One of the problems this bill aims to eliminate is people using the ER as their primary care provider. The only problem with a health insurance mandate is if a public option doesn't make it into the final bill. Then it becomes nothing but a boon for health insurance companies.

Quote :

"And the pre-existing condition elimination could be a good thing, but only if the government did enough to support health care such that my options won't be dwindled by that provision (like a public option), and honestly, it looks like they will be."

What does this even mean? The health insurance exchange that will be set up along with the public option means that there will be more options for the uninsured than ever before. Again, the conclusion your drawing is completely off base.

10/12/2009 11:04:22 AM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/12/world_should_catch_up_with_our_health_care_98673.html

Quote :

"Despite what almost seems a conscious effort to keep the facts properly subdued and tucked out of sight, the truth has been worming its way to the sunshine. Now it's clear, as one example, that longevity is only partially connected to health care in the first place and that when you subtract homicides and accidents, we in America live longer than anyone, despite President Obama's constant reiteration of the reform-encouraging and utterly deceptive thesis that we do not."

10/12/2009 11:12:37 AM

Quote :

"Every single version of the public option is paid for by premiums of the people who enroll in it."

Realistically, how long do you think that will last? Medicare went from being a government program to a "sacred trust" in the words of President Obama's last address to congress. Once this program starts losing money (which it will) politicians will have to cover the cost from somewhere (which they will, rather than lose votes) and it will be the middle class which feels the greatest brunt of the cost. I realize that it is supposed to be an actuarial sound program, but the likelihood of this actually happening is slim to none given the US Government's track record at matching confiscated income with expenditures.

10/12/2009 11:14:25 AM

Quote :

"One of the problems this bill aims to eliminate is people using the ER as their primary care provider."

I dont see where it does that at all. Ask any ER nurse/doctor in a poorer area who the majority of those who use the ER as a PCP are, from my experience they are mostly medicaid. Bc the cost to them is exactly the same, 0. They get fed if they wait long enough, so they bring the family, and there is no appointment to keep.

If you really wanted to prevent this, you allow the hospitals to triage patients and decline service or set up an appointment with a pcp.

10/12/2009 11:36:45 AM

Quote :

"Well, first off, your whole premise is wrong. You're right that most people won't be eligible for the public option, but you won't "supporting" those who are in any way. Every single version of the public option is paid for by premiums of the people who enroll in it. Additionally, they are also required to be actuarially sound and not subsidized by tax dollars. These are the little details that most opponents of the public option fail to realize/understand. "

You're missing my point. I don't want them to make a public option that I can't enroll in. Why the holly hell did I elect these people to make an option and not offer it to me?

I don't like employer sponsored health insurance.
I would like to enroll in a national public option.

Right now I have little option to enroll in my own health care program b/c I don't get the full cost of the program paid back to me if I don't enroll, so I don't have good options right now. So what were they trying to do with "health care reform"? Apparently something completely different from creating a market that satisfies what I want. Probably you too.

Quote :

"The bottom line is that people without health insurance cost all tax payers money. One of the problems this bill aims to eliminate is people using the ER as their primary care provider. The only problem with a health insurance mandate is if a public option doesn't make it into the final bill. Then it becomes nothing but a boon for health insurance companies."

That's not the bottom line, that's a tangent. The reason we started on health care reform is b/c the current system has spiraling costs, people are unsatisfied, people can't get the care they want, some people can't get covered at all, and medicare and medicaid threaten to bankrupt the government.

Quote :

"What does this even mean? The health insurance exchange that will be set up along with the public option means that there will be more options for the uninsured than ever before. Again, the conclusion your drawing is completely off base."

What? You just said
- Bill eliminates ppl using ER as their primary care provider
- Public option may or may not pass

Where are these new options for the uninsured coming from? Where are the new options for me coming from? And where are the cost reductions that were the purpose of this? Is there a single way in which this will benefit me?

Eh, just reread, so nm. The 'new option' for the uninsured will be the exchange. And this presents benefits over the current insurance market I take it...

[Edited on October 12, 2009 at 11:40 AM. Reason : eh]

10/12/2009 11:37:54 AM