You Give Me Expanded Coverage; I’ll Give You Cost Control
Nov 19th, 2009 | 49 responses
Ezra Klein reads over 2,000 pages of legislative language so you don’t have to. His conclusion: This bill is a “grand bargain” that achieves impressive levels of coverage while still cutting costs:
This is how health-care reform controls costs. It is, at its base, a grand bargain: The coverage expansion gets liberals to agree to, and even advocate for, cost controls they would never otherwise consider. A 6 percent growth target? A super-MedPAC — now called the Independent Medicare Advisory Board — that reforms Medicare to save money and whose recommendations are fast-tracked and protected from the filibuster? Hundreds of pages of changes to payment rates and experiments in value-based purchasing and coordinated care efforts? This stuff is very, very real, and it goes into effect very quickly. You may think it’s impossible for Congress to cut costs in Medicare and the government will just go bankrupt, but even you’d have to admit that this is what it would look like if the government was cutting costs in Medicare.
If this piece of the bill was passed on its own, it would be the most important cost control bill ever considered by the United States Congress. But you could never have passed it on its own. You needed the coverage to make the grand bargain work. Republicans like to call this bill a trillion-dollar experiment to expand the health-care system, and in some ways, it is. But it’s also a multitrillion-dollar experiment to cut costs in the health-care system, and it deserves credit for that, and support from fiscal conservatives. It’s easy to talk about cutting costs, but this is the chance for people to actually do it.
49 Responses to “You Give Me Expanded Coverage; I’ll Give You Cost Control”
Well, Reps had their 2 trillion dollar experiement that did little to secure the American people. At least this 1 trillion dollar experiment directly helps the American people.
Hear, Hear!!
“so you don’t have to”
[chuckle] We should have just listened to Pelosi, Reid, and Obama earlier.
The other side of the aisle isn't interested in anything that takes work or sacrifice, nevermind the fact that nothing worthwhile ever got done without a little toil and sweat. And in the absence of a fairytale fix, they will continue to oppose it – in any form, because that's what they do best.
It’s easy to talk about cutting costs, but this is the chance for people to actually do it.
Since they left the SGR fix out of the budget just like the House did, they actually haven't cut costs. My understanding is the Senate plan projects cutting physician fees by 21% in 2010, something that just isn't going to happen. When those adjustments are added in this won't actually save any money.
The House has already fixed the SGR earlier today but hasn't actually said how they would pay for it, I believe they're just going to carry it as more debt.
This is more voodoo accounting just like we had in the Bush administration with the war funding.
Still waiting on liberals to put their money where there mouth is and use THEIR money to run an insurance company as they think it should be run. But Ezra Klein and company would rather read 2,000 pages telling them how to spend other people's money even if its against their will.
LOL, Pelosi and company seking to spend your money “so you wont have to”.
“Our” money is what we're Allowed to keep (and Allowed to spend or save as they see fit, “ideally”).
“But Ezra Klein and company would rather read 2,000 pages telling them how to spend other people's money even if its against their will.”
At least, those who can read. Some lefties on this site have made it clear this cannot be assumed for all.
The cost estimates for Medicare and Medicaid were not within an order of magnitude of being correct. Does anyone really believe that the government can create a massive new entitlement with tax subsidies while maintain open borders and unlimited immigration while lowering costs.
The K-12 education system in the U.S. is probably the model that healthcare will turn into. A few private hospitals where the elite get their health care, a large number of dysfunctional urban hospitals where care will be horrible and then the suburbans where the middle class with fight to maintain some level of care while the federal government works to lower quality.
Given the Senate and House bills, why would anyuone want to think about a career in healthcare. More regulation, lower pay, more demand, and more entitlement: A surefire mix for a lousy career.
Yeah, government sucks at everything.
Police are terrible
Firemen are terrible
National Guard is a joke
Coast Guard can't even swim
Lifeguards only work on Baywatch
Worst military in the world by far…can't even kill Osama or beat a bunch of insurgents
What an interesting assessment of a bill trying to DO something about the health care albatross. Republicans held the reins of power for how long, and neglected to do ANYTHING to contain health care costs. In fact, they EXPANDED our obligations and increased the deficit to hand out yet another benefit to the elderly. Mark my words: health care will be the end of us if we do not do something about rising costs AND expectations. If the right really cared about future generations, they would join this process and try and make the legislation better.
I'm sure our individualistic friends here on TMV will be more than happy to forgo their Medicare and Social Security benefits, since they have such a moral oppostion to any government interference in their lives. And they will decline to ride on the roads taxes pay for, and decline police protection, and all public education, among other things. In fact, since they are islands unto themselves, let me suggest an island for them: Isle Royale, in northwestern Lake Superior, far, far away from the rest of us. There are no jobs there (which, based on the frequency of their posting on this site, I am quite convinced they do not have now), no real civilization, and certainly no internet access. Which would spare the rest of us homilies about their personal superiority.
Sounds like a plan, we should stop sending all that welfare money to all those republican states, I am sure that it will do wonders for the quality of their health care system.
At the risk of agreeing with my right wing friends above, Klien's analogy is smoke and mirrors. Here's the short version: over the first 10 years, the $160 billion increase will be covered by tax hikes and penalties…but just wait till the 20 years after that & you'll see what a good deal this is.
And where does expanded coverage come from? Universal coverage – no. Public option – no, except for three million or so who get subsidized policies. It comes from expansion of Medicaid (not Medicare) and CHIP. Of course, the government promises that this time they will control the costs of these government programs. Aside: I sell flying pigs if anyone would like to buy one.
The, very generalized, truth is that this will a) hurt small business and therefore employment, b) remove discretionary spending from the middle class in a consumer driven economy, c) tax, penalize and perhaps imprison those who don't go along, and d) help roughly 3% who will qualify. And, it will accomplish all of this without achieving universal coverage.
Oops, there I go, taking yet another conservative position. But, not to worry. If I can continue to think for myself, I could as easily say something liberal tomorrow at which point the right wing friends with whom I agree tonight, but who only accept lockstep and not ocassional agreement, will revert to form and … oh, never mind.
tidbits, wish you hadn't injected calm, rational thought into this thread since it interrupted my righteous indignation over verathegun and dq posts.
vtg…as Dan Akroyd once famously responded to Jane Curtin…..”xxx xxxxxxxx xxxx!” Tell you what, you refund all my FICA, FUTA and SE taxes paid and you may absolutely cut me out of any Social Security and Medicare dole entitlement once the check clears. You refund all the property taxes I have paid and I will gladly commute everyday offroad and agree to never phone the police. Don't even think public school had any bearing on me.
And dq, you pay me all the income taxes I have paid and I'll pay you all you've paid. Then we'll be sure to be even contribution and you can then speak to the unfairness of things.
Firemen are terrible
Government is bad, but local government is less bad than federal. It's at least a couple notches more accountable–you don't need a nationwide organization behind you to be heard.
The federal version of the fire department is, of course, FEMA. And they're doing a heckuva job.
Either Ezra Klein miss-typed or is horribly confused. Costs will not be reduced – what MIGHT be reduced (assuming the estimates come true, which is dicey) is the rate of cost growth. Klein cites the target as 6% a year. That's much better than the 9-10% growth rate we're currently burdened with, but it's still twice the inflation rate. If something is growing at twice the rate of inflation it is not reducing costs.
And that contradicts what he says at the beginning:
A balanced bill doesn't reduce costs either and if the last part quoted above is true, then it won't reduce cost growth.
Frankly, I don't know what he's trying to say.
Leonidas, I live on $1,342 a month, $950 of which goes to the rent.
But thanks for thinking of me.
Government: Mr. Klein, we are getting serious about balancing our budget.
Ezra Klein: That sounds great. How are you going to go about it? Cutting spending?
Government: Uhm, no. There are some new programs that we need to implement, you see.
Ezra Klein: Oh. Are you raising taxes, then?
Government: Goodness no! Don't even say such a thing!
Ezra Klein: Well, then, I don't understand. How are you going to balance the budget?
Government: Well, we've done some “out of the box” thinking and found a way to make it all work out.
Ezra Klein: That sounds great. I always knew that government could be as creative as the private sector.
Government: Thank you for the compliment.
Ezra Klein: Don't mention it. It comes naturally. I'm a liberal, remember? Now, tell me more.
Government: OK. The first part is that you will continue to pay your taxes over the next ten years as usual.
Ezra Klein: No problem. I'd be paying them anyway.
Government: That is correct.
Ezra Klein: OK. What else?
Government: Glad you asked. Now this is where the creative bit comes in. Ready?
Ezra Klein: All ears.
Government: We will withold your entire salary for the first five years of the ten year period.
Ezra Klein: Excuuuuuuse me???
Government: Now, don't worry. That ends in the sixth year, so you'll start getting your full salary again then.
Ezra Klein: Excuuuuuuse me??? What the heck kind of way is this to balance the budget???
Government: Mr. Klein, please. There's no need to get huffy.
Ezra Klein: Huffy??? You don't want me to get huffy??? Where's this proposal? I want to read it myself.
Government: There's no need for you to do that, Mr. Klein.
Ezra Klein: What do you mean? I want to see this proposal of yours with my own eyes, 'cause I can't quite believe my own ears.
Government: The CBO has read it.
Ezra Klein: And?
Government: They're OK with it.
Ezra Klein: Oh. Oh. Well, in that case, you're right. I don't need to read it.
Government: Thank you very much for understanding. Can you do us an additional favor, please?
Ezra Klein: I guess. What is it?
Government: Could you tell your readers that you're OK with this proposal?
Ezra Klein: I'll be happy to. I already have an idea how I'm going to go about it.
Government: Oh? Mind if we ask?
Ezra Klein: OK, just between us. I'll tell them I've read the whole thing, so that they don't have to, and I think it's a good proposal.
Government: Oooooo … that's good! Always thought of you as a great journalist.
Ezra Klein: Thank you. You'll remember that next time you've got a scoop, right?
Government: Of course, Mr. Klein. Good night, Mr. Klein.
Ezra Klein: Good night.
You forgot the U.S. Postal Service, which delivers first-class mail in one business day even when you put a 42 cent stamp on the envelope because you've forgotten first-class postage is now 44 cents.
Also, I'd like to put a word in for the incredible inefficiency of the Social Security administration, which gave me a decision on my application for disability benefits exactly when they said they would, sent me my first check exactly when they said they would, and now sends me my check every month exactly when they say they will. They paid me the back amount I was owed before they said they would. In fact, I got the written notification of the amount owed me, which they said would be paid within 30 days, and that amount was in my bank account the next day, not 30.
It's really disgraceful, don't you think? Government can't do anything right.
Public option – no, except for three million or so who get subsidized policies.
Well, you can blame conservatives for that one, g.c. Democrats would have preferred a straight-up public option with no opt-out, but they had to compromise to get conservadems for that. A robust public option with no opt-out with payments pegged to Medicare rates rather than having to be negotiated with insurance companies would have been much more cost-effective, but it would not have had a chance of getting 60 votes.
Oops, there I go, taking yet another conservative position. But, not to worry. If I can continue to think for myself, I could as easily say something liberal tomorrow at which point the right wing friends with whom I agree tonight, but who only accept lockstep and not ocassional agreement, will revert to form and … oh, never mind.
Well, never fear, g.c. I like you even when you decide to go wrong and take the conservative position.
Government is not bad. Government is good. Government is the only institution in our society that keeps private industry honest. And I could certainly find example after example to support that, including at least a few from my own life.
Of course that whole anti-government narrative is something that's been put out there by special interests who knew it would be picked up by people who don't know any better, and who wouldn't see (or admit) the glaring hypocrisy in that sort of BS. Democracy only works well when the electorate has a clue.
“I am sure that it will do wonders for the quality of their health care system.”
The second most healthy state in the US is also the most conservative state in the US, according to your link.
In any case, the general health of a state is not necessarily a reflection on the health care system in the state, just as the general health of a country is not necessarily a reflection of the health care system of the country. There are many factors that influence health other than the health care system.
Government is the only institution in our society that keeps private industry honest.
And if it restricted itself to that, I'd be a much bigger fan.
“Government is not bad. Government is good”
.
That sounded just a little too close to “four legs good, two legs bad”
More seriously, government is just a tool, neither good nor bad in and of itself. It works well in some areas, fails miserably in others. It can, indeed, work well to hold back the worst excesses of private industry, and has done so quite well in such areas as banking (Glass-Steagall), industry (Sherman Anti-trust act), credit reports, and food labeling requirements (just examples, not a complete list). But it also is prone to excess and failure, such as bank bailouts, which further consolidated an oligarchical industry, agricultural subsidies, which hurt the farmers is was supposed to help, and the Federal Reserve, an opaque (we don't even know who owns the thing) private corporation with government powers. These are the exact same people you fear in industry, but now they can also use force.
“Government is the only institution in our society that keeps private industry honest.”
Great! Now who is supposed to keep the government honest? Unless the government stops me, I can refuse to do business with companies that I believe are harmful, but I have no choice over my government, especially the federal government. With all the variety of wants, needs, and opinions out there, or even on this blog, there's not way that a few choices made every two years could possibly be considered a means of control.
Great! Now who is supposed to keep the government honest?
Us, Elwood. We the People. Through our elected representatives. And yes, it's true you have no choice over the government that's elected, other than through the power of your own single vote, and if you didn't vote for the party in power, that sucks. That's how I felt for eight years. But I felt that way especially strongly in the last eight years because GWB was an arrogant, unilateral, power-mad tyrant. Because the people he cared about were not even close to being people like me. Because he neglected the needs of his own country in order to fight unnecessary wars with inadequate planning and preparation and with too few resources.
You still can affect your government, though — especially with the president we have now, who is much more open to listening and constructive criticism than GWB was. You can write your representatives, you can work with local Republican groups, there are lots of things you can do to be advocating for your point of view.
Alright. Astonishingly, it has now been nearly two weeks since the House Republicans almost unanimously (one dissent) voted for their alternative plan. Since that time, here's how much the conservative writers here have covered it – ZERO POSTS. The conservative commenters, who here rave about how evil and wicked and stupid the Democrats are, have offered exactly ZERO praise for their party's alternative plan. So come on, DLS, CS, Dr J, CO, JG, even tidbits. Come on. PRAISE how your party would reform it. Let's hear some enthusiasm for how much better the GOP plan is. WHERE ARE YOU? Conservatives! SUPPORT YOUR PLAN!
What's the matter? Embarrassed? Come on. After 8 months of snarling, sneering, derogatory, defamatory, nasty and mean spirited sniping at the Dems, where's the praise for how the GOP would do it so much better????? No comment? Again?
GD,
The Democrats went from 2001 to 2008 without making a single policy recommendations. Even when topics such as immigration, social security, or homeland security were discussed, the Democrats never made alternative policy suggestions. They nitpicked the Republicans. That is what the party out of power is suppose to do.
I love how people talk about how great government is when their own party's leaders send their children to private school, fly in private jets, get their treatment in boutique hospitals. and avoid the government provided services at all costs.
It is hard to believe the police are great when the left surrounds itself with private security. That public transportation is good when the elite of the left never use it. If the government is good at providing services, then the Obama children would be in public school and not in Sidwell Friends. If the energy crisis was really important, Al Gore would not own multiple homes, would not fly in private jets, and would not use car services.
I will believe that the government is good when the left starts living their lives as if the government is competent.
Besides, Medicaid and Medicare have been great at creating a dependent class but have failed at cost control, spending control, or even controlling fraud.
GD,
I'm sure you know that any GoP plan would never make it out of committee, and in fact, the Dem leadership prevented even a committee vote – not that the GoP plan is any better than the Dem plans.
Government is neither “bad” nor “good.” It is necessary and productive for some things and unnecessary and unproductive for others. The problem with government is usually not the fact that government is involved in some aspect of life – but how it is involved and how it changes incentives. Look at the fee-for-service system in healthcare which was created by government. Look at financial regulation that forced big institutional investors to put their money in the highest rated securities while at the same time requiring rating firms to sell ratings. Had that latter not been the case the financial crisis would not have occurred. Very few would dispute the notion that government has a role to play in the financial system, in health care and other areas. But the character and scope of that involvement matters and government often gets it wrong. Another example is our tax system. Why should I need to buy a $70 piece of software to do my taxes and why should my brother, who owns a small construction company, have to hire an accountant to do his? The IRS sometimes doesn't understand its own rules. It is necessary for government to collect taxes but I think few would argue that our tax collection system, as complicated as it is, is “good” the way it is structured.
Actually GD I saw a previous comment where you said this and I've been hoping that one of the writers at TMV would see fit to write a blogpost about the GOP bill so that I could comment. Of course, there's been so many huge news stories like Adam Lambert, Sarah Palin, etc, that obviously no one can take time away to focus on this aspect of the healthcare debate.
All snarkiness aside though, I've been considering writing a guest post but not sure if I'll have the time- if I write something for the frontpage I feel that I should hold to a higher standard of being up on every detail, and it's been a busy week so I haven't been able to study it. Bottom line is that my impression of what I know so far is that that plan wouldn't be sufficient to solve the healthcare problem but would do far less harm than any of the Dem plans and would in fact be what many people have called for- a good start in the right direction which could be built on with future legislation (unlike the Dem plans which move entirely in the wrong direction and would have immense inertia behind them making it difficult to reverse course if/when they prove to be the wrong solutions to our current problem.)
Also, GD, I'll quickly point out that liberals who feel that universal coverage is the main goal are certainly not going to like the GOP bill but rational critics who aren't ideologically wedded to universal coverage can see that the GOP approach focuses more on cost control. The idea there is that the real problem is that we're spending too much on health care, and health insurance plans have priced many people out of the market. Focusing on real cost control measures can help people who actually want to purchase health insurance to be more able to afford it (as well as the positive effect on the federal budget if they really are successful at driving down cost of healthcare to reduce Medicare expenses.) This is a much different (and in my view, more realistic) approach than mandating coverage and expecting to be able to repeal the laws of supply and demand to acheive utopian social policy goals.
There is an exception to every rule.
Utah is conservative but it's not conservative in the same sense that Alabama is conservative. Utah has a fairly homogeneous population, a powerful centralized religious organization that enforces very strict rules, (No coffee, No tobacco, No Booze, etc), runs it's own school system and it's own welfare system. Utah's conservatism is primarily based upon it's local religious organization as opposed to that of Mississippi which is based on racial resentment.
Geez, GD, a fellow just can't win for losing. Oppose the health care plan and someone from left of center calls me a Republican; oppose neocon foreign policy and someone from the right calls me a lib/demmie. Guess I must be doing something right when the fire comes from both sides.
To clarify, I root for no party and no ideology, liberal or conservative. I evaluate issues based on three basic principles: freedom, fairness and fiscal responsibility. There are some nuances, but those form the basis.
Examples: abortion and gun control. Conservatives would outlaw abortion and favor gun freedom. Liberals would favor abortion freedom and support gun control. I support freedom in both arenas, that abortion should remain legal and that gun puchases should remain free. The nuance is that I recognize some reasonable exceptions, e.g. that felons should not own guns and that climics that perform abortions be subject to the same safety/sanitation requirements as other clinics. And, the principles take precedence over personal feelings as I have no great personal love for either abortion or guns.
On the health care proposal, it offends my principle of freedom with its mandates and offends my principle of fiscal responsibility because of its almost certain adverse effect on the economy. Therefore, I oppose it. It further offends my principle of fairness because its impact falls largely on the middle class while protecting special interests including the AHA, AMA, ABA and the insurance industry. It has nothing to do with me being of, or rooting for, any political party or ideology.
Sorry we don't agree on this one, but it won't be long before we'll find ourselves on the same side of some other issue, and those on the right will be calling us both names.
That's exactly my point. The general health of every state depends on a lot more than just its health care system.
'Utah has a fairly homogeneous population”
Ironically, that's the same argument that conservatives use to challenge studies that compare health in the US to heath in other, more homogenius, countries.
Loved it, biased tho I am.
Wow, I like what you said. Sound's moderate to me, and tonite I agree with your view on HCR.
However, just because one doesn't like the plans proposed so far doesn't mean one can't wish for reforms in our health care systems. I just don't like the bull in a china shop approach the dems seem to favor for HCR and other big gov. proposals. Thanks, tidbits.
So come on, DLS, CS, Dr J, CO, JG, even tidbits. Come on. PRAISE how your party would reform it. WHERE ARE YOU? Conservatives! SUPPORT YOUR PLAN!
How charming of you to ask, GreenDreams. It's not my party and it's not my plan.
I like elements of it, such as encouraging more competition in the insurance market. It's pretty insane that the government has to go out of its way to let individuals form insurance pools, but I suppose it's a welcome development.
I know you have low expectations of tort reform, but I think fewer lawyers mugging doctors is an essential step toward better cost/benefit accountability in health care.
The bill is definitely more evolution than revolution, which is perhaps the right approach to health care reform. I support the goal of universal coverage, but we can't get there without cost and efficiency reform, any more than I can get to Pittsburgh without going through Chicago. The Republican bill at least acknowledges this reality.
It doesn't tackle the #1 problem–the tax codes that keep private insurers in power. I suppose even the Republicans can't go up against both the insurers and the unions.
dduck12 – Thank you. I agree that we need reform. This just isn't it for me. Sometimes the fix can be worse than the problem.
“You still can affect your government, though — especially with the president we have now, who is much more open to listening and constructive criticism than GWB was”
So I'm stuck begging on their (congress & president's) doorsteps? Thanks, but no thanks. I do let them know, but I'm not going to influence them without being rich, and I have a wife that will prevent that condition.
The bottom line is, it's not working. Bad programs and policies seem to last forever, serve as foundations for even bigger programs, and become the excuse for another program to “fix” the problems that the first one created. Corrupt practices like the revolving door between lobbying and holding office are occasionally talked about, but never addressed. The bank bailouts were highly unpopular, but that didn't matter.
I would rather have control over my tiny part of the economy and community than to be one voice in millions over the entirety of both.
“ZERO POSTS.”
Aside from immature, this is a blatant lie.
I've posted time after time about the real reforms that matter, as well as other incrementalist measures that the federal government could take, in addition to doing other, more sensible things before what it's doing now (such as overdue Medicare and other entitlement reform, before expanding entitlements). I've posted time, after time, after time, after time. Why are you lying so pathetically and loudly (chldishly)?'
“The conservative commenters, who here rave about how evil and wicked and stupid the Democrats are, have offered exactly ZERO praise for their party's alternative plan.”
It's not my party, and not my party's plan. I have separately (if you can grasp that), addressed the fact that the GOP has sought reforms (be they clumsily, begrudgingly, whatever), but have been sidelined by the Dems, who have intended to “own” this issue and this effort from the start. How many times do you have to be told, reminded, attempted to be informed again about the long, long obvious?
? So come on, DLS, CS, Dr J, CO, JG, even tidbits. Come on. PRAISE how your party would reform it. Let's hear some enthusiasm for how much better the GOP plan is. WHERE ARE YOU? Conservatives! SUPPORT YOUR PLAN!”
It's not “may” [sic] plan, or my party. And I've been on record time after time suggesting superior means the federal government could resort to instead — but you ignore it, or dishonestly insinuate it (at least) here. (Never mind the other things above the typical leftist's logical and moral level and capability, such as looking to the states rather than the federal government to enact reform or even provide health care…)
What's the matter? Are you getting desperate and starting to fidget and flail at recent setbacks that the Dems have created for themselves? (With maybe some childish anger at having this week's mammogram criteria revision, on appropriateness and even cost-effectiveness grounds a la the Great Federal ObamaCare Experts, decide against those childishly expecting ever-increasing entitlements?)
Try again.
[dusting hands]
“The bill is definitely more evolution than revolution”
Actually, that is, even now, what probably irritates Greenie more than anything we have written (whether or not he is willing to admit it, though he says we haven't).
The mainstream would be aghast at a rush to Medicare for everyone, especially after all the overreach the Dems have done this year (stimulus follies, takeover of Detroit auto makers, trying to take over more and more of the economy in the name of “reform” [sic], political-economy “climate” craziness, and now a takeover of the health care system by Washington). The leaders of the effort chose incrementalism instead, with an “alternative” or “optional” near-universal public-care foothold intended to displace and replace the private sector gradually rather than everything, immediately.
I suspect Greenie is still not merely disappointed, but bitterly resentful. We are the objects of resentment.
“Bad programs and policies seem to last forever, serve as foundations for even bigger programs, and become the excuse for another program to “fix” the problems that the first one created.”
Yes — we know which way the “Ratchet” moves.
Ironically, the medical metaphor is so apt here, with health care “reform” (federal takeover) as it is for other subjects. Government “medicine” is prescribed to solve this or that problem. In addition to often failing to cure the problem (“illness”), if not make it worse, there are often side effects that accompany the government “medicine.” But rather than reduce or stop the medicine, to reduce or stop the problem, what often happens is (in addition to a “need” for more of the same “medicine” to cure the problem for real, this time), more “medicine” of other kinds, in addition, is the prescription. These produce their own side effects, for which additional medication is sought, and so on.
Just wait until we have federal takeover of health care and we start seeing the side effects (while proponents continue to parrot the coming end of the original symptoms).
“Just wait until we have federal takeover of health care and we start seeing the side effects (while proponents continue to parrot the coming end of the original symptoms).”
The standard lemming outfit does not come with a parachute.
cmon, DLS, you're not an author here, just a lowly commenter like me. I wasn't lying. None of the right-leaning authors here have posted about the GOP plan.
(dusting hands)
tidbits, my apologies. I know you're not a GOPer, and we often agree. I'm not thrilled with the Dems plan either. Not at all. It is single payer that has resulted in better health care at lower cost all over the civilized world.
And sadly, I have to agree that half measures may be no better than no measures at all. Eventually, though I cannot fathom how much it would take to convince the corporation worshiping right, people will become fed up with the extremely high cost of insurance and maybe when it's even more cripplingly expensive, they'll finally agree that pandering to Cigna/Aetna/BCBS is never going to deliver anything but more cost increases, denial of payment and medical bankruptcy. Sigh. Fortunately, I'll have single payer by then.
I'll be curious what you conclude when you have reviewed the bill. It seems a pretty cynical failure to me. First, it doesn't raise *federal* debt because it requires the cash-strapped *states* to cover those not currently covered. So who cares if state taxes rise as long as federal ones do not? The CBO concludes that it would only cover 3 million uninsured (v.s. 36 million under the Dems plan). The GOP has argued that the use of the ER shifts costs to the insured, but now seems unconcerned about that. Allowing people to buy insurance “across state lines” seems a pretty sad joke, as all the big insurers already operate in all 50 states. So…. more monopoly, no public option, a pretty shallow appearance of competition. It seems pretty consistent with the GOP health care reform of the last administration, that is, none.
“It is single payer that has resulted in better health care at lower cost all over the civilized world.”
I would be most interested in your backing up that statement.
I really hope that you won't be trotting out the “Life expectancy! Infant mortality!” line of argument that customarily accompanies such statements.
But, just in case you do:
http://www.oecd.org/document/31/0,2340,en_2649_…
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547Comparative…
Your move.