Had the Health Care bill contained the following elements:

[Tony_FLADEM]

Health Care Exchanges at the State Level

An option to buy into Medicare

More regulation of the Health Insurance Industry

Cost containment measures such as allowing Medicare to negotiate perscription drug prices, a mechanism to determine effective healthcare methods and transparent pricing.

But it did not contain subsidies to buy health insurance or the individual mandate.

Would it still be a good bill?

[rug]

1. Yes, but you'd have to remove "still".

[notesdev]

2. It would have been a half measure

At least it wouldn't be the Giant Leap Backwards that we got.

[ClassWarrior]

3. It would be a much better bill.

NGU.

[Tony_FLADEM]

5. People are against the bill because of the individual mandate and because

of the money that is being spent in subsidies to help people buy health insurance.

Had the bill not contained these items we could have had more reforms to our liking.

[anthroguy101]

4. Without the mandate, the system will be abused and the insurance companies would go bankrupt.

They're not likely to side with Republicans on that idea. The only reason Republicans are even considering it is because they want that happen and point fingers at the President for letting it happen.

As for the rest, yes that would make it a good bill.

[Tony_FLADEM]

8. I know the individual mandate is a Republican idea

and they are being hypocrites for opposing it.

The thing is people don't like being told what to do, so it's difficult politically to have a mandate.

As an alternative, maybe they could have forbid people from making major claims for up to 6 months after buying insurance.

For example, if you purchase health insurance, you can't claim 2 weeks later that you have an illness that will cost $50,000 to treat.

It would have the same effect as a mandate but be more politically realistic.

[gophates]

6. Single payer, no opt-out, Medicare for all

That would be a good bill.

A great bill would regulate the living shit out of big Pharma.

[Tony_FLADEM]

9. In theory single payer is a good idea

but do you really think the federal government has the capability to administer a health care program for 310 million people.

There are about 50 million people in the Medicare program and this involves a billion transactions every year.

I know the general population requires less health care than those on Medicare, but include 250 million people and you are looking at 2-3 billion more medical claims each year.

I don't think the federal government has the capability to administer this.

[customerserviceguy]

12. Admittedly, it would be a large task

But would it really be that much more difficult than the exchanges that are going to be set up? And could we not phase people into it, based on the adequacy of the coverage they have now?

When compared to the program to beat the Nazis to the atomic bomb, FDR seems to have shown courage that this President seems to lack. It'a all a matter of what your priorities are, and what you will expend to acheive them.

[Tony_FLADEM]

13. The health care exchanges are being set up at the state level

I don't think conservative states would cooperate if a single payer system were set up.

[customerserviceguy]

14. It would be much easier

to rally people around a rational solution to paying for healthcare than the mess that emerged out of the tail end of Congress. Some red states might resist, but ultimately, they would not prevail. The SCOTUS has already mandated participation in Social Security, where HCR as presently configured fails is that it requires purchases from private firms.

[LWolf]

7. "still be a good bill?" It's not a good bill, so it can't "still" be good.

A good bill would cut the insurance companies out of the loop and provide government-run not-for-profit health CARE.

[customerserviceguy]

10. Anything less than single payer

was just a way to keep the CEO's of the health insurance companies rolling in their money, like Scrooge McDuck in his vault.

[Tony_FLADEM]

11. see message # 9