Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.
What would you do to reduce costs? This plan has a key cost-reduction provision - the 'cadillac' tax.
Your talk about monopolies is vapid - do you have any evidence to support that claim in the field of health care? Because international and American experience with single payer systems shows the exact opposite of what you claim - the single payer systems have lower costs, much lower overheads, and achieve the same or better health outcomes.
Waiting lines for needed health care is "better"? Drastically higher taxes is "better"? I beg to differ. Medicare is the American equivalent of a single-payer system. It has driven prices higher by only paying (on average) 60% of the cost of treatment. And apparently Cadillac health care taxes only apply if you're non-union.....how's that for fair and equal? Apparently their wealth isn't redistributable.........
So what? Most people want to have their cake and eat it, too. Doesn't mean such a thing is possible.
Sooooo, this is a representative republic. Disregarding the will of the people pretty much goes against everything this country stands for. Unless you've got a different U.S. Constitution I haven't read yet......
What is that underlying intent? My intent is to cover everyone and put us on a more sustainable financial path. These are not mutually exclusive - they are in fact complimentary.
The underlying intent would be to severely damage the health insurance industry that provides top-notch care to the VAST majority of Americans. The intent of this bill is an end-game single-payer system--which I know you and Obama are in favor of--but is simply unsustainable when not curtailing costs or expanding availability. It's Econ 101, blockski. I know you're familiar.
What would that bill look like? And what do you base your doomsday predictions on? To paraphrase David Frum, how do you negotiate with the guys that claim you'll kill grandma?
So glad you asked. My bill would enact tort reform, elimination of unions from health care settings (Should they be able to leverage the "right" of health care against higher wages/costs?), dollar-for-dollar tax credits/deductions for either purchasing (insureds) or providing (employers) health insurance coverage, mandatory phys ed for school-age children (Funny, the libs are OK with elective phys ed, but want everyone to exercise?), expanded health education in schools, state-run pools to cover the pre-existing conditions of those who purchase health insurance, eliminating the ability to discharge medical bills during bankruptcy, institution of more high-deductible insurance plans to cover catastrophic injuries, allow hospitals tax credits/writeoffs for emergency ER care to uninsureds......just to name a few.
My doomsday predictions are based on the nature of the insurance industry and basic economics. Every insurance-based industry is run using actuaries. They base the insurance premium calculations on the likelihood of a claim being submitted by an insured. The likelihood is calculated using a number of risk-based variables: age, tobacco use, gender, previous treatments, previous claims filed, etc. In eliminating the use of these variables, there is no way of knowing how much to charge insureds in any given insurance pool. Given that this bill does not allow for limitations on annual/lifetime insurance coverage, pre-existing conditions, patient health history or any other variable, coupled with the fact that it will be illegal to raise premiums to account for additional claims across a given pool, and you can bet your arse that insurance companies will go under.
And again, the bill that has been passed does not do anything about cost or expanded health care availability. So Econ 101 says that more people using the same amount of services will either increase the cost of those services or decrease the quality of those services--or both. A single-payer system will only exacerbate the problem, because as we both know government entities make things much, much more expensive.
As for negotiating, the Dems NEVER gave the Republicans a chance to form the bill--they only gave them a chance to add some things to something that was (and is) completely unacceptable to themselves and the American people.
For all the fear the opponents have put out there, how would a rational criticism ever shine through? It's the boy who cried wolf.
On this we agree. However, I'd expect our elected leaders to be able to put the rhetoric and bullsh*t aside and talk honestly about the issue at hand.
Of course, that's asking an AWFUL lot, especially from some of the drama queens and hardheads in Congress.
Elections have consequences. You could have won back in November, and then you can take the lead on legislation. But the Republicans lost, and had the option to either obstruct or to help govern. They chose the former.
R's have no one to blame but themselves.
Again, no they didn't. They were never at the table during the entire piecing together of this bill--hell, the bill was only online for 36 hours before it was passed (as opposed to the 72 hours that the Dems promised). They were invited in at the very end as what appears to be a publicity stunt--so they can say that they tried for bi-partisanship.
But you are right: Elections have consequences. The Dems will learn that like the Repubs did in '06 and '08.
I would rather UND won the National Title than be anything like Rover 
