(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

The new healthcare bill will cost over a trillion dollars and STILL leave 37 million Americans without health insurance? WTF! What's the point? I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about this turkey.

This tells you how much the powers that be hate the single-payer option. They'll spend that much to keep it away for another generation.

Comments

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

Ew.

[stacymckenna.livejournal.com]

Are we talking about the Kennedy bill?

According to the LA Times, the Democrats' plans all focus on three broad goals...
* Making health insurance readily available to the 46 million people who don't have it, as well as more affordable and less burdensome to those who do, and to the employers who still deliver the bulk of medical insurance to workers.

In one of their most controversial proposals, Obama and congressional Democrats want to create an optional government insurance plan that individuals could choose instead of a private plan. Supporters argue that such a plan would curb costs and improve quality by creating competition for the handful of private insurance companies now dominating the market.

Few proposals ignite hotter partisan passions.
Now this idea sounds like a good one to me, and I've never been a big fan of a universal single payer system (I like having choices, cliche as that makes me). I know anything paid by taxpayer money gets resistance, but damn, if a partial gov program could be more efficient than a full single payer roll-out, I'd be all for that option being made available if it get more folk covered.

So, it sounds like they want to close that gap of those without health insurance, but the bickering on the floor even about proven mechanisms might [or is likely to] kill anything sweeping. Harumph.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Well, here's where I got the figures I posted:

"The measure before Kennedy's committee would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years, but leave 37 million people uninsured, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office."

Well, I'd be happy to see anything that covers people not currently covered, but I'd rather see something comprehensive and $1T sounds like a lot to pay for something that would still leave a huge coverage gap. I'm not too crazy about single payer either, but I don't think that competition has resulted in real choice (it's given us a race to the bottom, what with yearly 30% price hikes and new coverage exclusions every year).

[stacymckenna.livejournal.com]

I agree our current choices suck. Perhaps a competitive gov option would give the majors pause when people started jumping ship? From what I'm reading, the $1T covers a lot more than covering the uninsured gap, but it's in all cases a mind-boggling set of numbers.

[orb2069.livejournal.com]

So, they start a partial plan, that partial plan attracts every person uninsurable by other means, along with the people that the private companies kick out because - hey - now, they can without it being a giant shitstorm.

Said partial plan is then immediately declared 'Economically unworkable' because of excessive per-person costs and promptly sunk.

Meanwhile, the private insurers' profits go through the roof because they got rid of the 20% of people who take 50% of their money.

We're one step closer to living in Calcutta! Perfect!