Healthcare in the US.

[Plekto]

It really boils down to two things:

- There is a difference between everyone paying and everyone getting a benefit and everyone paying and only the poorest getting that benefit. Some people have likened it to public education, but this is more like requiring everyone to pay for a private education unless they are "in poverty". Only then can they use public schools. Simply put, if you make more than 3x the poverty limit you cannot participate at all yet must still "have insurance". That's the entire issue, especially since the poverty limits are set so horrendously low.

- Any time the government says "mandatory" or "required" it means that there will guaranteed be a nasty method to enforce it.

Oh - and yes, that's the problem people face if their employer won't pay for insurance or are part-time or self-employed. They have to pay market rate for it and it's a LOT of money. The people who don't have insurance right now are almost entirely those in this group - that their employer won't pay for it/offer it or they make too much to get on public healthcare, yet make too little to pay full market price for it.

Lastly, when Obama says "only 5% will opt for the program", I suspect that's political-speak for "only 5% WILL BE ABLE TO opt for the program". IF everyone could use it, it would be impossible to pay for using this scheme.

[Trump]

The way insurance currently works needs to be completely revamped. I'm sort of with Pletko, but as always he blows things way out of proportion. The current talk of reform isn't going to fix anything simply because they do not even address the underlying problems. They scream quick fixes that will only cost more in the future. I feel they don't even understand the consequences of what they are talking about. Here is what they should be talking about.

1) Doctors/hospitals should not be allowed to charge different rates to different patients for the same services. Period. I do understand why this isn't part of the current plan. It is discrimination plain and simple. There isn't a democrat or a republican who would argue this.

2) Regular doctors visits and checkups should not be covered under "insurance." The current system would be equivalent to car insurance covering an oil change. You have to get an oil change, why would you get insured against that? Similarly, preventative care is NOT related to insurance. You have to do it, so insurance doesn't make sense. Part of the reason our system is so damn screwed up is because they blur this line between insurance and care provider. I'm still up in the air about who should pay for it, whether tax and government controlled or tax credit for the low income. But by forcing people to buy into insurance that covers preventative care, they not only increase the cost of it but that makes it so people can't get the preventative care they need. Why do this? There is no good reason I can think of.

3) Following from 2), insurance should be limited to catastrophic cost and accident care. It needs to be highly regulated by the government.

It is because of this ignorance that I feel politicians do not have our best interests in mind. They spin and spin and push and push. Why are they pushing so hard for a plan that either doesn't exist because it hasn't been written or won't take effect for 4 years while they figure it out??? There is something wrong going on. They want power to make decisions before they tell us what they are going to do? WHAT? That to me screams corruption.

[CNagy]

You can always trust in the self-interest of politicians. Here are a couple of things that make me inclined to give health care reform the benefit of the doubt:

President Obama essentially made health care reform part of his campaign foundation. If he doesn't manage to deliver not only reform, but reform that is a noticeable improvement over the status quo, he severely hurts his chances at a second term.

The Democratic Party is currently enjoying a very sizable majority in Congress. Passing health care reform would be a very dandy feather in their cap. 2010 is an election year, and passing any sort of reform will look good on them because it will not have been in place long enough to show its effectiveness, but 2012 is a major election (and the Presidential election). It is in their interest to pass reform that works better than the current system for the poor and the middle class.

Now, the better they manage this feat, the longer their stranglehold on Congress and the Presidency will last. If the long-term effects of the stimulus package prove to be a panacea, then the addition of effective health care reform would usher in an age of Democrat rule. Alternatively, if they fail to deliver effective reform, their chances of holding onto power are bleak.

This is why more honest Republicans who are fighting the reform are calling it Obama's possible Waterloo--if they stop him here, he's finished. Because of the politics at work, I feel that the Democrats will work in their own best interests--the interest of their constituents--and provide something that, if not perfect, is at least effective.

[Trump]

No increases in the deficit were a huge part of his platform too...
As was campaign contribution reform...

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I refuse to take anything he says at face value. I understand he is working towards our "best interests", but from what I've seen his ideas of "best interests" are no where close to mine.

[mawande]

Pardon me, I will wave my magic wand and all the problems will go away. *wavewavewave* Hmm. Odd, it's not working. Oh, that's right. There's no such THING as a magic wand!

[Plekto]

Technically there is. Just, it is malfunctioning... ;)

[mawande]

Technically there is. Just, it is malfunctioning... ;)

*sob* I want it to work! I want everything fixed right NOW!

[CNagy]

Magic wand? That's not American. Americans use Magic Bullets. Or we try to. We do our damnedest to find those sweet, sweet magical bullet solutions.