lifehouse51

Well the way I look at it is that you need a bill to provide the momentum for further changes down the line. You need something huge, something people will fight for. It would be nice to make those gradual small changes over time, but that will take years, and by then you don't know how the political climate is going to be like. Even though the bill was passed marginally, at least right now you have the climate to pass such a bill, years later, who knows how things will be like?

I mentioned in a previous post the fact that U.S. has a high health care spending yet relatively low expectancy's is partly because a significant portion of cost went into administrative overhead. A single payer system will reduce that cost...but will that happen soon? I hope so.

sangiano

The "other side" had two terms and didn't show the slightest inclination to do so.

This should only be one step.

Next, and it is arguable they should have done this first, they can tackle the outrageous bills from Medical Providers, especially to the Insurance Companies and the astronomical cost of prescription drugs here. The Pharma and Medical Suppliers are happy to pay billions as part of the Bill because it is a drop in the ocean to them.

Some reform of the tort laws wouldn't go amiss either.

Then we might see the cost of Insurance drop to acceptable levels.

Whilst they're at it, reform the way Medicare/Medicaid payments are made to suppliers; at the moment it seems geared to paying out as quickly as possible rather than checking whether it should be paid at all. The level of fraud in the system is staggering.

Like others I think, whilst it may not be a great Bill, it is a least a start. Also like others, I would prefer a single payer system.

Giantaxe

Whether you like this particular bill or not, trying to do reform one step at a time simply doesn't work. The pieces are too interlocking for it to have any effect. The Republicans like to press this line, but it's really code for making sure nothing meaningful gets done in terms of increasing the numbers with access to healthcare.

snowbunny

What I really do not like (though I understand it) is the reaction of my (American) schoolmates (now grownups) to this reform. The misinformation and outrage is horrible. I heard similar vitriol on talk radio while driving through the American southeast last week. Horrifying stuff.

One point in particular disturbs me: they vilify all forms of universal coverage despite having absolutely NO experience with such a system. When I attempt to reassure them with my own, they just fall silent because what I am saying doesn't fit into any of their hate boxes.

If I remind them that Medicare is a universal coverage system based upon age, then they will howl about how Medicare is going to go bankrupt, while missing the reason why: Medicare covers those who are most likely to need a LOT of very expensive health care. The time for preventative medicine is largely up by age 65 (or older). In order to have a diversified risk pool, EVERYONE, not just those who are going to consume the most care, should be in a government-backed single payer system.

This is not rocket science. This is about a group of people who are absolutely refusing to listen to anything they don't want to hear, no matter how neutral the source or compelling the argument.

nettlebed

Business as usual. These people should forget their professed allegiance to Republican principles, and reform the party whose ideals they have adopted and modified, the Know Nothings.

dakota44

Ahhh the Know Nothings. Do we see an similarities to the Tea Party folks? I say yes. Everything old is new again.

Octang Frye

Hey, all you glee-clubbers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032201528.html

Tell me again how premiums/costs aren't going to go through the roof again?

Giantaxe

I think the Republicans overplayed their hand on this one. They saw healthcare as the issue to bring down Obama's domestic agenda, just as they had done with Clinton in the early '90's. Instead of constructively engaging in the legislation to improve it (and it could use a lot of improvement!) they became the party of fear-mongering to further their anti-Obama agenda. Once people see that the US isn't going to be transformed into the Soviet Union, that grannys aren't going to be lined up in front of death panels, and that many of the bill's provisions are inherently beneficial, the Reps are going to have some explaining to do. They've had an uncanny knack of being on the wrong side of social issues since their high point of the emancipation proclamation, and I doubt this one's going to be much different.

dakota44

Maybe I missed something in that article about premiums. I am, after all, only half awake at the moment. But George Will is an arch fiscal conservative (not to mention other issues) and I would expect nothing less than his disapproval.

dakota44

There may be a short term bloodletting of Dem's in this years elections but, as you say, when enough time passes and some of the benefits kick in the attitudes might change. There will still be a die hard core of nay sayers and "know nothings" to stir the pot.

dakota44

That's odd. I see Republicans and Arch Conservatives on CNN all the time. They even have panels made of of both sides to discuss the issues and present opposing points of view.

1chumly

A good start would have been to be able to purchase health insurance across state lines. There is no competition as things stand so no reason for insurance companies to lower their premiums. Of course it would work.

Giantaxe

Of course it wouldn't. It would result in a "race to the bottom" with insurance companies only providing policies in states that had least regulation in order to provide the least coverage they could get away with and the most exclusionary definitions of pre-existing conditions. Eight states even allow domestic violence to be classed as a pre-existing condition. Wtf?

nettlebed

That's only a problem if coverage levels are set by the state the insurer is located in: if they are mandated by the state the customer is located in, it's not an issue.

chartreuse

Ah, the old origin v reception debate. Brings back memories of the EU VAT Directive...