« The Wal-Mart of Heart Surgery | Main | Competition and Accountability »

Comments

Greg

Can I ask a serious question here? Back in 1994 Clinton tried to pass some sort of health care reform. He failed, and things have continued to get worse. So I am curious as to where have been the push or ideals to deal with this problem from the other side of the aisle. If Clinton's or the Democrats way of solving this problem is so wrong, why have those that oppose this legislation offer any substantial legislation to solve the problem?

For 8 years they had majorities in both houses, and a Republican Administration and nothing has been done. All that we have seen from the other side is crickets.

As I have previously stated the issue of buying insurance across state lines is nothing new. The CBO looked at this back in 2005 and concluded

"if only those benefit mandates imposed by the states with the lowest-cost mandates were in effect in all states, the price of individual health insurance would be reduced by about 5 percent, on average."

What this ideal would also do as pointed out by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, is that this provision would erode state government consumer protections, leave policyholders with inadequate coverage and could actually lead to higher premiums for some people. Which is why the insurance companies do not oppose this.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6639&type=0

Tort reform
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/12/tort-reform-could-save-health-care-54-billion-says-cbo/

Congressional Budget Office has determined that reforming the medical malpractice insurance system or tort reform, could save $54 billion over 10 years. That is far less than anything offered by either the Senate or the House.

Here is an interesting question. I know you are in favor of charter schools. You have consistently said that competition would be great for the school system. I oppose this because I think it is immoral for people to profit of kid's education as well as the life and death of human beings, which is why I am an advocate of single payer. To me, single payer has a proven record, and it's large pool base is the best way in my opinion to keep down cost. But here is where I have the question. If you find it is OK to use tax payers money for charter schools, why is not the same principle also apt in terms of the public option? It is a option people can choose if they like (as such as charter schools you have pushed for), and if they are not satisfied with the public option they could always choose private health insurance companies who seem to find a new way everyday to come up with ugly ways to treat their consumers.

Peg

If you are looking for someone to applaud all that Republicans have done in office, Greg - you need to look elsewhere. In my opinion, they caused harm while in office; GWB's drug bill was terrible.

But, parties change and those serving change. Right now, Republicans are offering superior solutions: http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

As for the parallel for schools - I'd prefer that both education and health care were run such that parents and patients could choose where they go.

jammen

"those on the other side acknowledge reform is needed, but have a different system in mind?

Huh? The "just say no Republicans" have a plan?

If only they had been in power. If only they had been in control of Congress and the Presidency, then we might have seen their master plan in action.

The comments to this entry are closed.