” By not doing anything since 2000. “

Ummm… who signed the Medicare drug benefit program? And more indirectly, what about the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005?

also what about the
Patients First Act of 2003
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s…

guess which Party blocked it?

Well, that's a bit more honest. Have you heard the criticism from the left, also, though, that the current House plan wouldn't really start increasing coverage for anyone until 2013? If I understood these critics correctly, the plan is so complex that it will take that long before the public option is really available- and others are saying that this delay might have been by design so that the costs aren't felt until after the next presidential election. I'm just wondering (if these claims are factual), will you also agree that that doesn't speak well of the Democrats having more real concern for the people affected than the GOP does?

The GOP certainly didn't do enough, but it's not true to say they did nothing. HSAs were created and there was a drive to keep expanding on that model and simultaneously making it feasible for the working poor to afford them through tax credits (to the individual and to employers to match funds.) I don't think they went far enough, but considering that the GOP base hasn't had any interest in the issue at all, I think it's commendable that some were trying to start addressing the problem.

But believe me, if the Democrats don't get anything passed by the end of the year, it will be entirely the Democrats fault.

Dr J,
Republicans are saying that the Democrats are trying to socialize all of health care, that they are going to destroy Medicare, that they are going to set up Death Panels and that they are going to cover illegal immigrants. Republicans, clearly, aren't making an honest argument for compromise.

That doesn't mean there aren't honest conservative and libertarian plans for health reform, but they aren't being pushed by the Republican party in a meaningful way. Which is too bad, because there are good market based plans that we could take ideas from that would make the bill better. But as I've said, good policy is not something the Republican party is concerned about.

Then you don't understand what they're actually saying. If you could get to the point where you could summarize their views in a way they would agree with, you might see them differently.

I'm not even sure the politicians on both sides agree on that much. At some point don't you have to look at the actions of Republican politicians and see that they are only prolonging pain and suffering for many Americans?

Every day we continue our current broken system, more and more people are denied coverage, or financially destroyed because the insurance companies aren't actually insuring anything. And yes, some people are dying because of it.

“The difference in visions of the role of government isn't about ideology, it's ultimately a disagreement about numbers. Those can actually be resolved, if reasonable people invest the effort to work them through.”

This sounds more like a description of the argument between Blue Dog Democrats and the more liberal members of their party.

Republicans, at least when out of power, deem that government has no role in domestic affairs, lower taxes, dismantle the safety net, etc. That's a matter of ideology, even if it's not principled.

I see, the starship trooper model…

” Define “contribute”.

I did in the previous post where I first said the term. I also defined willing to contribute.

” As far as a national database…. What if there is a discrepancy between a doctor's stated cost for a procedure and what he actually bills? What if there is a difference between what the insurance will cover on the website and what they actually cover (or the cost)?”

They should be held legally responsible to honor what they have entered on the database. It should be clearly written in law in such a way. If they screw up, they screw up. The data entry should perhaps include a double entry just like email confirmation for many things on the internet to help prevent honest mistakes.

“If your not willing to do what you can to contribute to society, society should have no interest in promoting your well being.”

Define “contribute”.

How would you treat a child of poor parents born with Down Syndrome?

“If your not willing to do what you can to contribute to society, society should have no interest in promoting your well being.”

Just curious to see how folks here stand on this.

My point exactly, Elrod. If more people would acknowledge even that much, the debate would get much easier. Instead, look how much ink is being spilled trying to prove the opposite. Democrats want Death Panels! Republicans want to Screw the Poor to make Themselves Even Richer!

The difference in visions of the role of government isn't about ideology, it's ultimately a disagreement about numbers. Those can actually be resolved, if reasonable people invest the effort to work them through.

Until the conservadems in the Senate show their cards and tell us if they would support a GOP filibuster of a bill with the public option, this whole debate is meaningless.

” That said, is there agreement on whether or not each and every American citizens should be eligible for some sort of basic health coverage? In addition, what is your idea of basic health coverage, so that the answer can be taken in context?”

I'm ok with basic health coverage (catastrophic events, standard illness and accidents, a yearly physical, full dental, etc. (no stumped toes, cosmetic surgery (except due to accidents/birth defects) drug abuse therapy, injuries incurred while breaking the law, etc.) to any US citizen who is contributing to the society or willing to do so. By contributing I mean paying taxes and I also include anyone who has ever served in the armed forces and been honorably discharged. By willing to contribute, I mean those 18 or older (exemption for students enrolled in colleges until graduation) who if not meeting the contributing criteria will sign up for being willing to work in public service in exchange for coverage. These folk will be evaluated and called on if needed up to a limit and paid minimum wage while called up. If they fail to report without medical reasons if called upon, then they will be dropped.from coverage and have to petition for reinstatement. Most of these folks will likely never be called upon, but they should be willing to contribute to a government that will provide for them when they are currently being a burden.

“You may be right that the two positions can't find compromise”

I disagree, the positions can find several areas of compromise, but can the politicians? thats the question. The problem is twofold.

First on the democratic side, the liberals of the party want the whole cake, they feel they won the election and should be able to do what they want. The problem is the American people didn't just vote to approve a democratic agenda, some who voted for democrats really support that very little, what they wanted was the policies of George Bush ended. This is not the same thing as a mandate to the liberal wing of the democratic party to do what they want.

Second on the GOP side. They are emphasizing opposition to Obamacare which is unpiopular. They see the President's approval ratings going down and are taking advantage, and with some justification given the partisan way the stimulas was rushed through with democrats predicting “Armageddon” if nothing was done. However, justified this is, they should still make more time to present a positive note and promote their own plans more, its not like they don't have thought out and detailed items to present. Focusing just on opposition to Obamacare was proably needed initially, but its come to the point now that the public option is a dead horse, for the GOP to bring their ideas forth and encourage debate and compromise. Paul Ryan is already doing this, but John Boener and Mitch McConnel as party leaders in Congress and Micheal Steele need to get on board as well.

Probably no one's plan is perfect for everyone's point of view, but enough items are workable from enough peoples that some reform is possible. This whole pie does not have to be eaten at one sitting. Work on one slice at a time, take a break and let it digest then tackle another.