I just can't get behind a plan that allows the government to set prices. I really don't think Obama actually thinks this has a chance but instead is trying to get the republicans to say no so that he can go on the offensive. Let's make this a broader issue and say the government can roll back prices on groceries, cars, jewelry, or anything else. How do they regulate this. Who makes a decision about what is egregious. It's just too far reaching for a government. How about, let's cut the waste in medicare and I mean really cut the waste. Then we can look at the government's solution to the private sector's issues. First they need to solve their own issues.
The Louisiana Purchase is still in there. Red, what you advocate is all well and good, but this plan is more about entitlements than cutting us working stiffs a little slack.
I like it Red, but what are the chances something like that will go through? Unfortunately I see neither side compromising enough to make that happen.
Of course I do. If my insurer jacked up my rate 39% they wouldn't be my insurer any more. The government meddling in the pricing is only going to make things worse.
Unless you mean you would just do without, you're being naive. In the current sorry state of affairs, there's a high probability there would be no significantly cheaper alternative, and if you were "lucky" enough to find another insurer that would agree to take your money, you'd face a new years-long rescission period, during which, if you used your insurance for any of a couple thousand reasons (literally), they'd try to find any reason, no matter how frivolous, to retroactively kick you to the curb.
There are plenty of ways to make healthcare better for us, but neither party is actually interested in this. The dems are obsessed with expansion into our private lives and the repubs are obsessed with getting re-elected, which equates to letting the dems screw themselves. Both want to spend outrageously, and have. One party says, "look, we want to spend less then them!", and the other party says "look we want to take care of you!" If you support either party, but are unable to recognize the difference between what these guys are saying and what they are doing, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
It's foolish to advocate a new massive spending program when the government is already running trillion dollar deficits that are on the brink of seriously jeopardizing our economy. Just because you raise taxes and cut spending to pay for it doesn't make the new massive spending prudent. The net effect is less resources and means to tackle the existing national debt which could lead us to an even more severe economic crisis. We should focus on measures that will save money. Cut cost as you stated, tort reform, and competition across state boarders. These are measures that won't impede getting the defcits under control. If these measures work to reduce cost then the next step can focus on ways of making health care more accessible to the poor.
I think the word "reform" needs to exit this discussion. The current plans don't reform healthcare as much as they create a new benefit for a political base. If the real goal was reform, this could all be done with FIRST some litigation constraints and THEN a few, well-thought through insurance industry constraints. This is pandering. This is raising the limit on the credit card instead of cutting it up and paying it off. This is stupid.
