Reading  |   Home  |   Hurting

Dean: Kill the Health Care Bill

I agree with Howard Dean, let’s kill the bill. 

Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean argued Wednesday that the health care overhaul bill taking shape in the Senate further empowers private insurers at the expense of consumer choice.

“You will be forced to buy insurance. If you don’t, you’ll pay a fine,” said Dean, a physician. “It’s an insurance company bailout.” Interviewed on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” he said the bill has some good provisions, “but there has to be a line beyond which you think the bill is bad for the country.”

“This is an insurance company’s dream,” the former Democratic presidential candidate said. “This is the Washington scramble, and it’s a shame.”

Posted by Owen at 1253 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

1. Looks like we finally jumped the shark on this one. I’m in agreement with Howard Dean…  somewhere a micro-universe just imploded.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2009 at 1452 hrs
   
   
   

2. I agree, stick a fork in it. We should revisit the subject when we have a slightly more bipartisan congress after 2010. Maybe then we will be able to actually address the issues without all the inflated statistics and fear mongering. I find it interesting how much importance the white house is putting on this bill, and the rhetoric of the President which makes this turd seem like a majestic giant sequoia rather than the potted hosta that it is.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2009 at 0824 hrs
   
   
   

3. Doug-
   I’m genuinely curious about this question: What mechanism in a more balanced congress would result in a more rational debate on health care reform? I suspect you may be right, but can’t put my finger on it.  I am one of the partisan left who’ve thought we should use the reconciliation option to force this through and let folks on the right scream all they want about it. But I’ve only thought that after I’ve completely discounted the shrill fear-mongering from the right. Otherwise, I usually find myself a proponent of positions arrived at through compromise. For instance I didn’t like the admin’s original plans to ram HCR through by August. Two empowered positions might well lead to more rational debate. Is it as simple as that?

   Posted by Mike on December 17, 2009 at 0930 hrs
   
   
   

4. Mike,

   No, it is not as simple as that.

   However, a bipartisan approach may well result in some of the options that the American public actually supports being included in the bill. You know, torte reform, insurance portability, incentivising HSA’s and low cost high deductible plans, allowing small businesses to pool together to buy large group policies, ending state coverage mandates so that people can buy plans tailored specifically to them.

   I am not necessarily opposed to expanding the coverage provided by medicaid to cover those with pre-existing conditions, but it seems to me that there has got to be a better way to get these people coverage.

   Furthermore, ramming this bill through would not just result in outrage from the right, it would result in democratic minority for a generation.

   And, you have to be fair, there has been “shrill” fear mongering on both sides. The President himself was just on TV the other night telling all of us how if this bill doesn’t pass our small businesses and individuals are going to see 35-50% increases in our policy premiums, while hiding the fact that those of us in our 20’s could see our policy premiums triple under this bill….

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2009 at 0659 hrs
   
   
   

5. Insurance companies should be able to present you with a coverage “menu” from which you select the coverage you wish to have ala carte, and then choose a deductible which best suits you. If you want to have birth control covered, you should be able to pay for that, if you want abortion covered, you should be able to choose that, if you want long term hospitalization to be covered, but not short term, you should be able to tailor your plan to suit that.

   Also, all healthcare establishments should have another “menu” which shows how much they charge for any given procedure, especially testing and imaging. Why would I get an MRI for $2000.00 in a hospital when I could get one for $600.00 at one of the imaging only “stores”. For those of us who would elect to have an HSA and a high deductible policy, we would then be able to save TONS of money, and competition would be promoted among the different healthcare providers.

   I think that HSA’s are an outstanding idea, and I think it would be cheaper to subsidize them with a government match than it would be to create a “government option”. It could be means tested if that is how you want to do it, but the government could say match your investment dollar for dollar if you make under 25k a year, 75 cents on the dollar for 25k-60k and 50 cents on the dollar up to 200k or something like that. All on pre-tax dollars.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2009 at 0712 hrs
   
   
   

6. I don’t necessarily think the propositions you mention are bad ideas. Hearing them proposed and debated responsibly was the chief reason I objected to the urgency of this past summer. But its hard to call anything that’s happened since then ramming it through (though reconciliation would be fairly called ramming). I also think that the backlash against such a move would less than you say.

   I suspect the idea of a marketplace model for health care. I think the reforms necessary for that would be just as sweeping as any currently under consideration before congress. This market will not correct itself anytime soon for the least powerful in our society. Right now the level of waste and graft in the system cannot go unaddressed. Reasonable debate can happen about how best to arrive at that. But death panels and soci

   Posted by Mike on December 18, 2009 at 0929 hrs
   
   
   

7. yeah, dang. I’ll have to finish later.

   Posted by Mike on December 18, 2009 at 1007 hrs
   
   
   

8. I was gonna say death panels and cries of socialism meant to incite fear and not thoughtful discourse on the part of voters does not represent reasonable debate. I won’t exempt the other side from those charges either.

   So given the public’s inability to engage in real debate, lets just pass it and move on. There are times when I feel the left mamby-pambies around things too much. It tries to build consensus around things that may not be possible to reach consensus on. Hell, just pass the legislation while you have the votes and go forward. Especially when the opposition resorts to some of the tactics they have. It serves them right to have it crammed down their throats.

   But real, responsible discourse should be the first resort, ramming should come when no evidence of real, responsible debate is left.

   Posted by Mike on December 18, 2009 at 1255 hrs
   
   
   

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.