OK.  So Obama has created the talking point over the past several days that has led many, even many the right, to disparage Sarah Palin’s “death panels” comment as being over-the-top, inaccurate, etc. 
As I’ve discussed in sev…

Those who can pay will always be able to buy more health care than those of us reliant on any risk sharing pool, whether government or private insurance. All such systems have limited resources and have to determine how and what to spend them on. There is nothing inherently better about the decisions a profit making system makes on what to spend the money on than a a non-profit system. Some insurance pools are non-profit as well.

More importantly, there is room for a combination of public and private insurance in the market. It exists currently and can continue to exist in a future with a “public option.” Such a system already exists in Germany, where the majority of people are insured through private non-profits under government charter. Many people purchase supplemental policies for “luxury” coverage such as single rooms in hospital etc.

As long as the health care providers themselves, doctors, hospitals etc., are not public employees or businesses, the insurance world will have more than one option and there can be freedom of choice. In fact, I had more freedom of choice, not less, under the German “public” insurance than I do with our high end private insurance here in the US.

Your implication is that a federally run government medical coverage plan would decrease the amount of time you had to waste on the phone? It’s comical to think a government run system on that scale would perform better or even come close in terms of customer satisfaction.

No, my implication is that the private system is horrible, and has failed me and my family on numerous occasions. I reeealy love BEGGING some company that I pay a ridiculous amount of money to do everything in their power to NOT provide the service I’m paying them to provide.

Oh, what? It’s the private system, why not just switch insurance companies? Well, I have, and the grass is just as brown and dead on the other side of the fence.

Considering my experience with the system, it’s very difficult for me to believe that a government system could possibly be worse.

You guys have almost managed to terrify me into thinking that it might, though. You’re all incredibly adept at making people scared shitless. Well played, right wing.

Your implication is that a federally run government medical coverage plan would decrease the amount of time you had to waste on the phone? It’s comical to think a government run system on that scale would perform better or even come close in terms of customer satisfaction.

I battled the bureaucracy with both Medicare and a private insurance company during my mother’s hospital stay before she died. Neither was as responsive as I’d want.

C’Mon, smitty. Of course it’s a great philosophical argument. How the federalism argument against reform translates into death panels being anything but a deliberate exaggeration or some other arguments that make the jump from A to Z with no intervening logic or facts, I can’t figure. Enlighten me.

ed.

There is no free market in health insurance now. It is one of the most heavily regulated industries around. And I agree, reforms are necessary. One might wonder what a true free market in health insurance would look like because companies would no doubt spend most of their time cherry picking healthy people to cover.

But why not insurance pools where risk is spread out over dozens of companies and hundreds of thousands of people? This would certainly help the chronic/pre-existing conditions group. Right now, I’m looking at the Co-op option - doesn’t look very promising on a national scale but statewide might be interesting. And I still think the tax subsidy is the best way to insure those who don’t have insurance but want it.

Open competition over state lines would help also. As would tort reform - funny we never hear anything about that from your side even though a Price Waterhouse study concluded that 10% of heath care costs are derived from defensive medicine - a direct result of suit happy Americans who see dollar signs if they even imagine they can make a case against a doctor.

Efficiencies derived from reforming Medicare - especially how doctors and hospitals are re-imbursed and rewarding medical professionals for quality care - small, reasonable steps that would be followed by other small steps which would eventually change the system for the better.

ed.