Bogus Healthcare

The best single thing the Dems could have done was to make insurance available across state lines, but it had two things going against it; it was on the Republican list and it didn't cost a dime. This bill did not "reform" health care at all (medications and procedures will continue to cost more) it just created a bigger bureaucratic beast, plenty of new "legal" opportunities for lawyers, and a little less in the pocket of taxpayers and those eager youths that didn't have to pay previously.

We agree on the end result.  But our views on the next step are far divergent.  Indeed, your aims are simplistic and unworkable, but I have no doubt they will be tried eventually.

The best thing would have been to scrap it altogether until the economy a was on its feet; in the meantime it could have opened up Medicaid to  more of the uninsured and lowered entry to Medicare.

 unworkable only because  those of us with  pretty good insurance and congress with Cadillac plans don't give a shit. 

The problem with Medicare and Medicaid are similar to Social Security. They are dependent upon population growth.  Is it any wonder that they are shrinking during the same period where the average couple is having 2.05 kids (population equilibrium LINK) while there is still an increasing population reaching the age of a benefactor?  In short supply remains relatively constant while demand goes up.

No, Unworkable because everyone cannot be in the top 5%.  It is an impossibility.  And no amount of good intentions is going to change the laws of the universe.

I believe it was Margaret Thatcher that said, "The problem with Socialism is you run out of OTHER people's money." (or something similar).

So Stevendedalus, would you suppor that the UHC should also force them (congress) to be on the VERY same as they propose?

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher

The Laws of the Unuverse according to the doc: The hell with everybody as long as I'm on top. Or is it the law of big banks?

Interesting you say this Stevendedalus.  Don't you find it ironic that the most capitalistic country (in terms length of time and quantity) is the country with the highest immigration rate?  If you destroy that which was the tool to build up you have nothing to build with once it is gone. 

Right now many of the Mexicans and other migrants are leaving the US.  Why?  Because of economic down turn, there aren't any jobs.  This is even greater of a gamble than was the dependent upon population growth from birth rates.  Besides it's not like the immigrants are all trying to become legal, now are they?

Dont I wish!  No, I am not on top.  But I am smart enough to know that everyone cant be on top.  There is always going to be a top and a bottom, no matter how good the intentions.  Period.  America has the best health care (note I did not say the best insurance).

It all comes down to a limited resource that must be rationed.  In a capitalistic society the rationing method is money.  You can get excellent health care for no money.  But you cant get the best for no money.  And everyone cant get the best.  There is not enough of the resource to go around.

Until congress realizes that, and starts working with that maxim (or law of nature if you wish) in mind, anything they do is only going to make it worse.

many people (myself included) hate HMOs!  But it was Ted kennedy and the democrats that gave us HMOs!!!!  This next thing is only going to be HMO+.  You dont improve a bad idea by increasing it.  And that is all they are doing.

Doc, congress won't be happy until ALL Americans can have mediocre health care, themselves excluded.

I know - classic liberal ideology.  Make everyone poor and equal.

This legislation will not improve health care.  It will just make sure no one gets any excellent health care any longer.

You're probably right as long as we do nothing to improve entry into the medical profession and stop perceiving it as eliteism. 

That will make tort lawyers happy as the number of malpractice suits mushroom.

It is only considered "elitist" because you are playing with lives.  And in that, there is no room for error.  of course there are erros (not mal-feasance, just human errors), and that is why mal-practice - which is mostly just to cover the human fallibility condition - costs so much and adds so much to the cost of health care.  And of course which nothing the democrats will do will have any impact on.

Insurance peddlers have drummed fear into the hearts of physicians to justify their outrageous premiums. As for reform tortwise, except in the grossest scenarios I have always advocated reasonable compensation and not left to the whimsicality of jurors.

No, you bought into that.  Insurance companies do make profits, but as they are still competitive, they cannot extort.  lawyers can as they have no competition in the court room.  Once ordered to pay, there is no more democracy on the subject.  You pay.

So the insurance is based on actuarial tables showing risk versus loss.  But when a shyster can walk into a NC courtroom, channel a dead child and force a multi-million payout over a genetic defect that was caused by god, lawyers are driving up costs.  No man is god.

That is an issue Democrats need to deal with. They constantly need an enemy to advance their cause. Currently doctors are off the hook, but it was not always that way. Remember the pharma's were the bad guys two or three years ago. Since they signed onto Obama's plan, they are safe for the moment, until this passes and the Dem's need a bad guy to blame high cost on again. Kind of like a dog that is fine one day and bites the next. Too many masters.

No, studied actuarials actually.  You bought into the democrat myth of the evil insurance company.  the truth is they do make a profit.  Of between 2-5% return (regular passbook now is earning 2% and government backed CDs can get you 5%).

If business does not make a profit, they do not stay in business.  And think about it.  If you have money to invest, and the return is going to be 5% for a government backed CD, and 5% for a risky private business - where are you going to invest your money?  It is really simple economics.  Not the bugaboo that democrats both created and vilified.

Ooh, like the Republicans have love lists, huh?

 C'mon, give me a break. Of course surplus capital has to be created out of any economic activity for it to endure, but there should be limitations and decent values. A Head honcho of the likes of Cigna, receives outrageous compensation, not because his company gives better service but by how many claims are denied. 

Maybe, I'm speaking within the context of the article, but I have yet to see them single out an industry for vilification. It's not difficult to see there are many groups that make up Democrat's collation that do not mix well, pro/anti abortion, liberal/conservative, etc. It's far more pronounced than the Republican party. They attempt to cater to many, and end up pleasing few. The recent complaints by gays is one example of this. A big support group for Dem's IMO. Yet, in CA blacks, another large Dem base group, were 70% against prop 8. Who do you throw the bone to? No matter someone will feel left out.

I mentioned on another of your threads - actually no.  He receives it because Anthem, or Aetna, or some other big place wants him and is willing to offer him a little less than his salary. (if it was more, he would jump and go).