[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

It does sound like a good plan. I'm just very skeptical since the free market has failed epically thus far, and would prefer something that has a more concrete set of results.

I would say that we haven't had a real free market in a very long time in terms of healthcare. Not allowing companies to compete with one another outside of state lines is not competition, it's regulation impeding competition. Curently, the healthcare industry is one of the most heavily regulated in the entire country, outside of financial industry.

So we've seen two industries have significant difficulty/failure, healthcare and financial, they are are the two most heavily regulated in the country...

Meanwhile things like food (beyond the FDA) and especially clothing (items everyone needs) have been the some of the least regulated in the country and we've seen their prices remain relatively cheap and accessible over very long periods of time. (I'm not comparing their complexity, only their oversight and government intervention relating to success and affordability.)

Like, what if we do that and it doesn't reduce costs like we thought it would? Or if the costs are reduced, but not as significantly as we needed them to be for the plan to be successful? And who gets to define what the word "uninsurable" means? I have a very bad feeling it would work along the same lines as the "expected family contribution" for sending a kid to college.

I don't see how a government option automatically answers any of those questions either. If the government option doesn't reduce costs, and the CBO says it won't reduce costs but increase them even more, will we switch to a free market system after spending an estimate $1 Trillion to establish the government program?

How will the government defined the uninsured? How will they define who gets treatment, especially if we see a continued drop in the number of available doctors? What if survivability odds for life threatening diseases drop to levels we see in other socialized nations? Will that be a failure, or deemed acceptable? If we don't like any of these things that government healthcare imposes, will we even have a choice or an alternative anymore or will our only recourse left be to petition our government to change it?

Here's a great question: If the government really wants competition, why will they only fine company's without insurance 8% of their revenue, when companies pay FAR more than that in providing healthcare to employees? Isn't that encouraging companies to drop care to save costs? Isn't it easier to do so when there is a government option waiting to gobble up their employees?

If you've ever looked at those, they are hilariously high, and not at all what a family can reasonably afford without selling their home or something.

I don't disagree with the problem, and quite honestly this debate is beyond recognition of the problem. It's the solution that is causing the divide.