reply      new comment      top   

Penn makes a valid point that the 'debate' over health care reform has been mostly bullshit, to use Penn's favorite word.

We had this same 'debate' in the early 90's with basically the same talking points;

1) Hillary (now Obama) is a socialist who wants government to take over health care.

2) Reform is "Socialized Medicine", and any reform can be compared to a Single Payer system

3) Any reform to the present system is automatically so expensive that we can't afford it.

Okay, so now it is 15 years later, and 'Socialism' Hillary-style was heroically defeated by the GOP which became the dominate political party since about 1994 until 2009. The great unasked question is; "What happened to health care in the intervening 15 years, with the heroic defenders of capitalism in charge?"

Well, part of the answer to that question is that the number of uninsured Americans nearly doubled, while insurance got more expensive, coverage got worse, and executive pay got massively higher. It is clear that this is the natural direction the market will take us, without some government regulation, with the national goal of coverage for everyone in mind. Government run and/or government paid health insurance should be the route of last resort. Any reform should get more people covered, and covered better, at costs which reflect the spread out risk, with reasonable return on investment for the private (capitalistic) companies involved.

Another part of the answer is that more of the cost of health care has been cost shifted from private insurance and onto county, State, and Federal governments. At present the cost is so high, that is necessary to find ways to either reduce the cost, or spend the same money more wisely.

If we could stop talking about Nazis or Death Panels or Socialism or Single Payer Plans, all of which are 100% irrelevant to the reality of the problem and to any possible solutions that Congress might come up with, we might start getting somewhere.