Originally Posted By: tonyc
I have a lot to say on this topic, but have been spending most of my "free" time recently fighting with our existing health-care system on behalf of my wife. I'll probably jump in here again when I get a few round tuits, but looking over the thread, it's clear that some people are flat-out misinformed about what is and is not in the bill that Obama's going to sign into law tomorrow.

The most clear and concise summary I've seen is here.

Quote:


To boil it down, it does four things, and I’m putting them in order of importance and power. First, the coverage expansions and subsidies. Second, the insurance market reform. Third, cost containment. And fourth, there's a prevention component. And if you wanted to go a bit more concrete, what it does is cover about 32 million people, reforms insurance and makes a start on cost containment, while, according to CBO, decreasing the deficit and saving a trillion dollars.

There are some things it doesn’t do. It doesn’t cover everyone. It comes reasonably close. It helps an awful lot of people pay their bills, but it doesn’t fundamentally alter the cost curve. Instead, it makes a start on altering that cost curve. It throws most of the best ideas on the table, but we don’t know which will work and which won’t. It doesn’t change how most Americans get their health care now. That was, of course, by design: The lesson of the Clinton effort was that the third rail of health-care reform was people’s current arrangements. And while some of the bill starts soon, some of it doesn’t start for several years. If you go to 15,000 feet, I guess I would say it is centrist legislation leaning a little bit left.


Read on for an honest discussion about things the bill is expected to do well and things it really won't be able to do. The source of this information is the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is generally considered reliable by people on both sides of the political spectrum, and is who the health insurers themselves often look to for guidance.

Ultimately, this bill is VERY close to the Republican alternative proposal to Clinton's 1993 plan put forth by Sen. John Chafee, and mirrors the Mitt Romney Massachusetts plan in most respects as well. The idea espoused by many that it's a government takeover, or an incursion upon one's personal liberty, is preposterous.


Sweet, that "prevention component" will win me my bet with Bitt! :-)

PS: the fact that it's close to a Republican bill means nothing to me as the Republicans have just as bad a track record on liberty.


Edited by TigerJimmy (22/03/2010 21:58)