Manc

did you not read my post?

Kaffy Mintcake

Maybe I didn't follow your argument because to me forcing everyone to participate makes sense. If everything must remain private and insurance companies are forced to cover the higher risk patients (i.e. preexisting conditions or those who currently find it difficult to find coverage) while others who are low risk (generally young, healthy) are not required to participate, the system becomes unsustainable.

Think about it, how could the insurance companies not go bankrupt under such a model?

Manc

I've underlined the horrific bits right there for you.

I keep hearing how great the insurance companies are and how shit the government is at running things......... what's the problem.

Kaffy Mintcake

Ah, I'm not against the public option. Unfortunately many who insist the government can't run anything properly have short memories. Look at this as a baby step ... likely all that's possible for now. Not ideal in any way but what we might believe to be ideal will not occur for a while. Any progress is something and I'm hopeful that once the ball starts rolling that things may improve in time.

nettlebed

Some people believe that discrimination will still occur, and it seems likely to me. Don't forget, these companies pay lots of smart people lots of money, and they are past masters at finding loopholes: there are none better...

Kaffy Mintcake

I don't disagree, but loopholes would be found with any plan, would they not? I guess I think that some progress is better than no progress, but certainly do not believe that all will be perfect ... far from it.

Manc

My initial problem with the legislation is that they should have started at universal healthcare and they'd have compromised at a public option.

When you start at a public option, you get beat down to this.


Obama is an empty suit.
said it before the primaries.............
and the Dems are gutless. The Republicans / corporatists / lobbyists are still calling the shots.

and Lieberman should just be told to caucus with them and have his senate chairs removed.
twat.

nettlebed

In a plan that is almost exclusively profit-driven (i.e., the status quo), that is absolutely true. That's why a single-payer, free-at-the-point-of-delivery scheme is in my mind far superior.

Kaffy Mintcake

I would have liked what you have proposed, but believe it would more than likely have never passed. Can you imagine what those who call Obama a socialist would have thought of that plan?

I'm not familiar with what you are proposing Nettlebed, I'll have to do some research on that before I can form an opinion.

I wonder if the American public will be so impatient to see any kind of positive change (let's face it, it wouldn't occur overnight with any plan) that they will switch parties in 2012. I hope I'm wrong, but the short-term focus of the average American disappoints me frequently.

nettlebed

I think it's sad that that is even a consideration: he won with a comfortable majority on a platform that included radical health care reform. He should live up to his promises, not worry what a bunch of twunts say about him. Let 'em froth and foam, and maybe they're heads would explode. The filibuster has to go before any real political reform can take place in this country.

I think the Republicans have a chance in 2012 because of the short-term memory effect you refer to. And if the current administration has done nothing to meet the promises it made to all the voters that got Obama elected, then those voters won't turn out, even though they probably have a longer-term view than most American voters. What Obama sows in failed promises, he can expect to reap in lost votes.

I don't like that at all, but it's an entirely believable outcome.

Kaffy Mintcake

It's reality though, it would have never passed the Senate. Plus, Obama ran on the principle of reaching across the aisle, so completely ignoring the position of the GOP would alienate moderates who supported him in the first place.

Baby steps. Seriously, if we're able to get any of these measures through (outlawing pre-existing conditions for instance) then consider it a battle won in the war.

Bluegrass Lass

And what will the monthly premium be for those with a pre-existing condition Kaffy? If there is no gov't option to be more competitive and to keep premiums down, but we are required by law to have insurance, what is the alternative? There has been nothing done to actually lower the costs, and all Congress has done is give insurance companies another 30mil customers. That is horrific to me.

What if a person with health insurance through their employer loses their job? This happens everyday. What will the alternative be when they can't afford COBRA or a private policy? I mean why would an insurance company approve a new policy for someone who just lost their job?

This 'reform' is merely window dressing and does nothing to solve any problems within the system. It's a total farce.

Kaffy Mintcake

I never said that the current plan was an ideal solution, simply that any progress (even if it's offering those with pre-existing conditions a costly option as opposed to no option) is something. A battle in a greater war.

My point was simply, if we're stuck with private insurance (which seems to be the case at the moment) then those who are lower risk must sign up along with those who are higher risk to balance things out. If insurance companies have to pay out more than they can take in, it's unsustainable.

Like you, I would prefer that a public option were available. Unfortunately, there are many individuals who simply won't entertain that option at this time.

BritishGuy36

So we're going from 'one burst appendix away from bankruptcy' to 'can't put food on the table cos if I don't buy insurance instead I'll be in the slammer'.

Hardly what I'd call progress.

Kaffy Mintcake

Out of curiosity, do you have a source for this? That's the first I'd heard that someone would be jailed for not signing up for healthcare.