That Sneaky Nancy Pelosi

Have to wait and see what it looks like. Wonder how they cheapened the bill. I know one way to cheapen healthcare would be to use older medications and procedures that don't require the latest medical advances. Its not the best healthcare available, but its a lot cheaper if we rollback the clock. So have to wait and see what she is actually going to propose.

If this can be done, the democrats will have truly accomplished something worthwhile. I expect the GOP would still rather see them fail, if for no other reason than not wanting to see them get credit in the eyes of the electorate for realizing the decades long goal. I wish the democrats luck in pulling this off, as the main beneficiaries would be the citizens of the US - regardless of thier political stripe. Does anyone suppose that republicans who couldn't afford private health insurance would decline to use the public option based on "principle"? Somehow I doubt it.

Does anyone suppose that republicans who couldn't afford private health insurance would decline to use the public option based on "principle"? Somehow I doubt it.

Does anyone suppose that Democrats who could afford better private health insurance than a public option would decline to have the better coverage based on principle? Somehow I doubt it. Lets see how many democratic lawmakers opt for this coverage instead of their own current sweetheart deal on principle should a public option become a fact. I'm guessing not many.

One other note, kinda related:

3,000 NHS staff get private care
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health...

THE National Health Service has spent £1.5m paying for hundreds of its staff to have private health treatment so they can leapfrog their own waiting lists.

More than 3,000 staff, including doctors and nurses, have gone private at the taxpayers’ expense in the past three years because the queues at the clinics and hospitals where they work are too long.

Figures released under the Freedom of Information act show that NHS administrative staff, paramedics and ambulance drivers have also been given free private healthcare. This has covered physiotherapy, osteopathy, psychiatric care and counselling — all widely available on the NHS.

But what does that have to do with what is being proposed since the NHS of Britain is single payer and we are not even playing with that idea anymore. If you have horror stories from Germany or Switzerland those would be valid comparisons but I have heard nothing but good things about their systems.

MSF, the 'horror stories' in those systems- as well as ones that are probably even more comparable, the state programs like Tenncare and Massachusetts' Commonwealth Care- have to do with costs that are unsustainable.

TennCare

Commonwealth Care

Germany

Now, from what I can see, the Swiss system isn't much like the current US reform proposals at all, and in fact contains some of the elements proposed by conservatives in the US- notably, elimination of the employer based system and shifting more costs directly to consumers (to encourage more rational use of healthcare.) I think there's a lot we could emulate from their system, although some things wouldn't translate (as the article points out, they don't have Medicare and that would be politically impossible to do here- plus, they have sharply curtailed drug costs through price fixing, which basically means that we in the US subsidize their drug costs.)

Kathy, there is no need to rush or overreact. What needs to happen at this time is that the Demmies need to Get a Grip, and become purposeful once more, and add something missing so far this year, intelligence and maturity. They have rushed stupidly, and have overreached increasingly this year, and they self-destructed prior to now over health care "reform" as a result. They need to think for once this year, and decide what they want, then act methodically to pursue it. That means getting agreement in each body as much as can be had prior to Senate-House negotiations (the conference). What remains the key is the federal takeover mechanism already chosen, the "public option." Burris is now in the news as supporting (insisting on) this in the Senate, so House people (who need to rally behind the "public option' as their only basis for strength in negotiations) should assume at least one or a few more in the Senate will also move this way. In the meantime, while lining up behind the public option in the House, the psychops can continue (honest or otherwise), such as having people there in the House flirt with more radical alternatives (to make the public option seem more "subdued" and "mainstream," even though it obviously is radical itself). At least one person has audibly began flirting with a Medicare buy-in proposal, for example. Going so far is tricky and risks more self-destruction due to more of the same overreach, but the main thing is to get everyone moving in the same direction (the House seeking to pull the conference legislation "left of Baucus," with the public option being the obvious bargaining material) with the readiness (if they're intelligent and mature at all this year, that is) to go to a "Plan B" (which they should already have ready -- do they?) if the public option is conceded (if only in name -- a Plan B would exploit co-ops or non-profits to create pretty much the same thing, just with a different name).

I must say I really like Ron Wyden's proposals for de-coupling, and if we do it now or later I think it will be done but I wish we could get it all at once and de-couple from employer based now but the shift of costs to consumers would ensure a very unhappy electorate until they got used to the change.