The health insurance reform plan approved by the Senate the other day can best be likened to a misdirection play in football, where all the action seems to be going in one direction while the real play is heading in another. In this case, we a plan being called “once-in-a-generation reform” — a bit of overstatement, really — when what we have is relatively modest insurance reform that expands coverage by mandating consumers buy plans from an a cartel-like industry that holds all the cards.
The misdirection here is the opportunity the bill gives the White House and the Democrats to claim a victory even if it is rather hollow — no public option (let alone any thought of a single-payer, Medicare-for-all approach) to create competition to keep costs down, no expansion of Medicare, no changed incentives, no alternatives for businesses stretched to their limits, but millions of new customers for the insurance companies.
So, is it worth passing? That’s a difficult question. There are good things in this bill and there is the possibility that it can be used as a foundation on which to build real reform. The problem is the discourse surrounding the bill. If it were being described by the press and the president as what it is — something short of reform — that would be OK. But it’s not. It is being described as once-in-a-generation reform and that creates the danger that this bill has become a once-in-a-generation chance to fix our broken system. If the House cannot fix it, cannot toughen this bill up, progressives need to walk away from it.
Hank Kalet 
From Paul Krugman's blog:\”For people on the left who think this is all a big nothing, consider the subsidies. From the Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator, here’s the percentage of insurance premiums on the individual market that would be covered by subsidies at different levels of income measured as a percentage of the poverty line (all calculations are for a family of 4 headed by a 40-year-old):Guys, this is a major program to aid lower- and lower-middle-income families. How is that not a big progressive victory?For people in the center who worry, as my colleague David Brooks puts it, that there may be unintended consequences if you “centrally regulate 17 percent of the economy”: um, it’s a little late for that.First of all, government insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and smaller programs like the VHA, already pay more bills than private insurance companies…….\”
As you may already guess, I think ALL these gooferment programs are a BIG mistake. Here's a few points to try and convince you:(1) If the gooferment runs health care and you get \”screwed\”, to whom will you appeal?(2) Assume for a moment that the \”estimates\” are correct (and that is a HUGE ssumption), where will we borrow the money for it?(3) Is it \”constitutional\”? (Equal protection in Nbraska, Fifth in the nationalization of insurance companies, Fourth in the individual \”mandate\”, and even First in the lack of conscience exemption about abortion)(4) Is it necessary? (Could we not try some SMALL steps? Lawsuit reform. Tax deductability for individual's purchasing their own policies like life insurance. Nationally available polices. Allowing credit union and WalMart to get into the \”health\” biz.Let's not throw what is the best to keep the politicians and socialists happy.
What's the goofertarian solution? Oh yeah, move to Somalia, the libertarian paradise, or just leave it to charities. That will cover the 45 millions uninsured and the tens of millions under insured when porcine entities levitate.People are dying now, people are sick now, people are going bankrupt from medical costs now. We need reform now. The current health care proposal is not my ideal, it is deeply flawed but it looks like it's the best we can do for now with the party of NO, the Gop, with chicken liver centrist and Blue Dog Demicans and with the insurance and drug lobbies pouring tons of money on our Congressional corporate lackeys (excepting Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich and a few other progressives).We should have Medicare for all or single payer but that's too enlightened for this country. Chitz!Tort reform? Most of the states have already enacted tort reform and it has done virtually nothing about reducing costs. Tort reform is a state function but a libertarian wants the big bad federal goofernment to take charge of tort reform?????!!The CBO and GAO both did separate studies about medical torts and tort reform and found that medical torts are a small tiny fraction of total health care costs. Texas enacted very strict tort reform and the costs keep rising in spite of those reforms. What if a doctor, hospital, a drug or medical device maims you for life or kills someone you love, why should there be limits on the amount you can sue for? We are so worried about protecting the wealthy or powerful but not the poor boob who is the VICTIM of medical malpractice.
>What's the goofertarian solution? Well, if you stipulate that life insurance work well, let's imitate that solution. the gooferment stays out of it EXCEPT to prevent fraud. So how about the same in healthcare and health care insurance?>tort reformDocs and hospitals still have to practice CYA medicine with tests. SO (1) we don't have tort reform AND (2) savings come from HOW they practice medicine.>VICTIM of medical malpracticeAND when gooferment health care injures you, where will you sue? In a GOOFERMENT court? Yeah, buy your lotto tix; it's more likely. AND, when the GOOFERMENT death panel decides to ration you out of luck (i.e., the Health Insurance comizars decide that YOUR case is too expensive to treat) who will you sue then? In the GOOFERMENT's court? Please I'm ROFL a that vision.>All I'm saying is SMALL measured steps. Test fixes.The GOOFERMENT can't be the provider and the referee.Unless you beleive in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and honest politicians!