Health care poll

[Sam Spade]

I see no reason to answer a question that is flawed, since none of these five statements of faith address "cost problems."  I have said plenty of times that the present system is doomed from a cost-perspective (sooner than you might think, in fact), but until it is described to me, in plain math (and not just in vague generalities like the above answers), how any proposed solution will work better "cost-wise" than the present system, I have to assume that you're full of sh!t in terms of a new system solving "cost problems".

You see, that's the reason why I can't take any poster seriously who complains about how "the Republicans" are scaring people about health care.  No facts are provided as to what specifically is false, the argument sounds in hyperbole and ironically, fear-mongering (the same hyperbole which passed the Patriot Act, the Prescription Drug Plan and the Iraq War, btw).  All that needs to be done is to make a simple showing.  What does the legislation say, what are the attacks being made and how are the attacks false?

And towards my big issue, "cost-savings", I ask that those who are actually interested in thinking, to read the proposed legislation and point out to me where the cost-savings are.  If you want a single-payer system, explain to me how the numbers work without severe rationing, which will occur if we can't blow another debt bubble probably regardless of the system implemented (not to mention what will happen to the rest of the world).  I want math.

On the present legislation, I have read one hundred pages of both bills, I see how the system is supposed to work, and the only potential for "cost-saving" I see is if the MAC drastically reduces the "expected medical benefits" required in a "qualified plan", whether governmental or otherwise.  On the other hand, I can spot many, many legislative provisions that will cost health-care costs to shoot the moon, the part about no discrimination in plans to people based on "health status" or exclusions based on "pre-existing condition" being the worst offender in my mind. (that I pointed out yesterday)
 
Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that any new proposal could create as much "access" to health care as there is presently, but that statement presumes "access" to health care is a positive thing.  Any greater "access" to health care would inherently create "cost problems" much greater than the present system.

I end my little spiel here with noting in passing an interesting side-issue - the effect of the US spending less money on health care (or spending it more inefficiently than present, which is quite possible).  Think about what it means to everyone else.  Getting a grip on the numbers concerning this one is hard, but I may do it soon if I feel like it.