Skip to main content

View Diary: Some Kossacks Need To Pick a Side: A For Profit Cartel or Progress (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the key problem with the Baucus bill (0+ / 0-)

    is that there are regional exchanges as opposed to a national exchange. This is the central reason why it would be ineffective in breaking up regional monopolies, which, as you correctly point out, is the major problem with our current system. A well-regulated national exchange would effectively make McCarran-Ferguson irrelevant, at least in terms of health insurance.

    With that said, while this is a strong argument for a public option, it's also a bit of a strawman. Given the nature of your accusations, I think you should provide evidence for your insistence that those who don't oppose a PO-less bill are either insurance company employees or don't care about making a positive difference in people's lives.

    As someone who just recently gave up a huge chunk of my relatively modest income to buy individual insurance without any kind of assistance, I would be pretty much elated to be able to buy insurance through a regulated national exchange with generous subsidies, even if I didn't have access to a public program. That would be a marked improvement over what I have now, so with that in mind, while it's obvious and indisputable that the for-profit system will continue to inflate costs at some end of the system, it's also the case that one could genuinely support health care reform and still view FDL-style ultimatums as largely being driven by academic and ideological concerns. While I can't speak for everyone among the uninsured or barely-insured, the situation is bad enough to where many of us would welcome even meager relief.

    With that said, it is accurate to say that Switzerland is an example of a regulated multi-payer system, though as you point, it's also accurate to say that the current bill isn't proposing the Swiss system. To the same extent, however, HR 3200 isn't the Canadian system. I think the argument here is that regulation can offer a viable path to health reform as single-payer. I think everyone acknowledges that the bill we'll pass later this year, with or without a public option, is a foundation for further reform, not our final destination.

    •  The Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie

      doesn't apply to the health insurance market either. I don't think even what we call a well regulated national exchange would suffice without cost control and knowing that the industry won't get to decide what well regulated means or that people will have somewhere to go. I think the closest thing to breaking these monopolies up is to give a safety net to catch those dropped from their rolls since our Congress is not progressive enough to demand it like a Teddy Roosevelt or Robert M. Lafayette.

      It's not a straw man. there are a number of people here who proudly state they either work in life insurance or health insurance and condescend to progressives who don't believe in the magical failed Mass regulations they are touting in a monopolized industry as I show among other things.

      I empathize with you, though and I am uninsured and unemployed, but once I get back on my feet, I don't want to pay for junk insurance without any pressure that a public option would bring.

      historically the methods used are similar to the 21st century methods FDL are using to put our Reps feet to the fire.

      Thank you for acknowledging that our for profit system is unsustainable and the other information i laid out, but the reason the Swiss system works is because of the regulations on profits and that would be just as hard as passing HR 676 here and would garner just as much opposition.

      No one thinks Hr 3200 will mimic the Canadian system but it gives a foothole to it to build on later as it's based on Medicare like the Canadian system is.

      If any bill passes without a public option we only have monopolistic failure to build on and it will never get betetr like when we improved on SS over the years.

      Demanding progress is historically how each of the great reforms were brought about in our country as history shows.

      I empathize, but strongly disagree with you, but thanks for reading and analyzing my diary.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

      by priceman on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:19:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site