Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Your reference to normalizing costs in order to "qualify" assured me that I correctly interpreted that Insurance companies had to meet standardized specs to be acceptable.
|
Yes, this element in particular I find to be particularly counter-intuitive as it restricts the individual from making choices that might lower their personal burden and hence the liability of the entire system.
The progressives clearly consider 100% coverage
and parity between plans to be critical success factors, but as presented to date these goals appear to threaten the entire system.
What needs to happen is before we draft a bill, both sides should hash out a document of common goals so we can at least agree on what improved health care could look like...then argue about how to get there.
I'm very concerned that the GOP is really going to screw this up. The party's only response these days seems to be to rile up the fringe, which isn't going to get them very far. The Dem's will pass a version of their bill anyway.
Republicans should present a simple 5 item list of principals on which to build a solution, good common sense stuff that the average person would agree with, and clearly articulate how these principals can enable a solution to the real issues. With the proper marketing they could force the Dems to rewire the DNA of the proposal.
This would take the debate into the mainstream where Democratic Congress people would feel very threatened in their home districts. Yes, there's some of this happening today, but as this thread clearly demonstrates, there's so much obfuscation and confusion few really know what the hell is even being proposed.
-spence
Threaded Mode