You know, I didn't write much in this thread prior because I honestly didn't know too much about it. But since having gone out and read up on whats being discussed, and really listening to every side The issue that every side has a problem with is "rationing."
And dispite it being the issue for each side, they cite "rationing" as the reason we need to jump from one form of rationing to the other"
The press secratry for Kathleen Sibelias (probably spelled that wrong) is claiming that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is projecting a more expensive Public Option because of poor accounting from the previous administration.
I.e. it looks like a lot more because things (like the war) are being accurately accounted for at this point. I can't comment on whether or not thats true, but it seems like its too easy an answer to just patch things up.
If their looking for a public option, then they should (in my opinion) set up blanket coverage for a finite amount of things; Emergency Room visits, Immunizations, Pregnancies/Births, and basic blood work. This would greatly reduce a few thigns...
1. The concern that if people are really hurt, they're going to receive sub-standard care which as most Americans know is par for the course.
2. It would alleviate quite a few of the strains on current HMO's (which are superficial and propped up to justify gouging, but its gives them one less argument)
3. Speaking as someone who deals with a highly regulating government, I'll mention two things about good ol' MA.
a. we have a state mandated obligation to be medically insured. If we can't afford an HMO, there is a state plan we can opt into.
If we aren't insured we get roughly a $6K fine on our tax returns.
b. Our current auto insurance policy is what I'll call "half regulated" (you'll have to look it up) where in people aren't legally allowed to be denied coverage. If no companey wants them, their put into a lottery and given an insurance companey who can dictate their price.
Agencies are required to have X number of "lottery'ds" our they are fined.
Based on these two plans and the knowledge that the current system is coming apart at the seams because its failing to keep costs down, the Capitalistc natture of some Congressional members - as noted by experience - won't do what they are claiming it will.
I guess this leaves us with a Single-payer option, which I'm not opposed to but brings up the "horrid" idea of Rationing again.
My entire comment on that can be summed up like this:
Rationing is politicizing this debate, which is slowing the process of fixing a broken system that gouges poor, sick people.
If we don't ration, we end up writing black checks to Drug Companies for some useless pill that may possibly stop you're intestines from exploding. But the side effects are heavy. And its $40 a pill.
The horror stories you read about are people generally demanding an experiemental drug that won't bring people eternal life, but maybe another year. Maybe.
If you fund those things, who then do you deny coverage for? Or, how expensive does the tax become - which would screw the working class.
Rationing is fine - American's are just scared of dying. My time will come and I'll roll my wheelchair in front of a train before I live via tubes.
|