(03-31-2012 07:46 PM)Max Power Wrote: Fo this was not my first choice, but it's far better than what we had.
I don't think so.
At the very best, it's better in some areas, worse in others, and whether it's net better or worse will depend on where you were. For the 85% who had health insurance before, and particularly for the 77% of that 85% who were happy with what they had, it'll be worse. It may or may not be better for the rest, depending on their individual situation.
We will cover more people with health insurance, and that is a good thing. But it will come at the cost of making health care more expensive, less accessible, and of a lower quality for those who had health insurance before--and that is a bad thing, a very bad thing.
I am willing to pay more for my own health insurance to help cover the rest of the population. Since there were 15% without, and since a great many of those are healthy people who chose not to purchase health insurance, it shouldn't take more than a 15% increase for me to get everyone covered, if we all pay our pro rata share. What I'm not willing to do is pay more and turn around and have to become a medical tourist because the quality of, and access to, health care crater. And that's the result I expect. Why? Because that's the results that other countries have gotten when they go the way we are going.
Universal health care does not have to be controlled centrally. You do not need a single-payer or a single-provider. The systems that don't have a single-payer or a single-provider work better.
