You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is it possible to have free health care in the U.S?
- Thread starter 1982
- Start date
LeftofCenter
New member
A lot of conservative Democrats, not to mention Republicans, express two big concerns about health reform. They're worried that reform will cost too much. And they don't want a government-run insurance plan.
It's about to get a lot harder to make those two arguments simultaneously.
According to a pair of Capitol Hill sources, preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office suggest that a strong public option--the kind that the House of Representatives is putting in its reform bill--should net somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 billion in savings over ten years.
The sources cautioned that these were only the preliminary estimates, based on previous discussions--that CBO had not yet issued final scoring on language in the actual bill. But the sources felt the final estimate would likely be close.
Exactly how the plan produces those savings is, obviously, a key question. The reason--well, a reason--centrists and conservatives don't like a public plan is that they fear it will use the government's bargaining leverage to force doctors, hospitals, and drugmakers to accept unfairly low reimbursements. Private insurance would go out of business, since they couldn't compete; meanwhile, providers and producers of medical care would struggle to stay afloat.
Advocates of a public plan (myself included) think those fears are overblown--and that there are ways to make sure a public plan doesn't have that effect. But if the CBO is scoring significant savings, then chances are the House version gives the public plan the kinds of power conservatives and centrists fear.
But, for now, the bigger story is the number. At a time when finding the $1 trillion it will take to finance coverage expansions remains the major challenge of reform, the discovery of $150 billion in potential savings is an important--and encouraging--piece of news.
It's about to get a lot harder to make those two arguments simultaneously.
According to a pair of Capitol Hill sources, preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office suggest that a strong public option--the kind that the House of Representatives is putting in its reform bill--should net somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 billion in savings over ten years.
The sources cautioned that these were only the preliminary estimates, based on previous discussions--that CBO had not yet issued final scoring on language in the actual bill. But the sources felt the final estimate would likely be close.
Exactly how the plan produces those savings is, obviously, a key question. The reason--well, a reason--centrists and conservatives don't like a public plan is that they fear it will use the government's bargaining leverage to force doctors, hospitals, and drugmakers to accept unfairly low reimbursements. Private insurance would go out of business, since they couldn't compete; meanwhile, providers and producers of medical care would struggle to stay afloat.
Advocates of a public plan (myself included) think those fears are overblown--and that there are ways to make sure a public plan doesn't have that effect. But if the CBO is scoring significant savings, then chances are the House version gives the public plan the kinds of power conservatives and centrists fear.
But, for now, the bigger story is the number. At a time when finding the $1 trillion it will take to finance coverage expansions remains the major challenge of reform, the discovery of $150 billion in potential savings is an important--and encouraging--piece of news.
Spock (rhp)
New member
"free" does not exist in Universe. Everything has an energy cost and the cost must be paid by someone/something.
What you are really talking about is government paid health care.
Is it possible? yes.
Is it desirable? highly questionable, if not highly doubtful.
***
Among the many interaccommodative forces in Universe is one we usually call "Evolution".
Evolution clearly applies to all living species and perhaps to some energy transmitting systems that we humans do not think are living.
It also seems [no definitive proof -- yet] to apply to social organizations of both sapient and non-sapient living creatures.
Assuming that Evolution does apply to social organizations such as human societies, it is far more powerful than our mere wishes and desires, no matter how noble they may seem.
In fact, "noble" may well be a descriptor for human behaviors that are not evolutionarily favored -- for losing behaviors that will, in time, be wiped out by the forces of Evolution.
The potential model I offer for this is the porpoises in the oceans. They seem to be intelligent and perhaps are sapient as we understand the term. If so, their societies are tens of thousands of years older than ours and have thus been molded by Evolution for far longer than ours [which are, at most 10,000 years old].
"Noble" behavior isn't often seen among/in porpoises. They have a variety of very self-serving behaviors, some of which are cooperative and others of which are not.
Maybe, just maybe, the human ability to manipulate our environment to a far greater degree than that the porpoises are capable of, will permit behaviors to us which are not evolutionarily favored to porpoises.
But it sure looks like a long shot.
Still, Evolution always looks like a long shot until after it happens.
What you are really talking about is government paid health care.
Is it possible? yes.
Is it desirable? highly questionable, if not highly doubtful.
***
Among the many interaccommodative forces in Universe is one we usually call "Evolution".
Evolution clearly applies to all living species and perhaps to some energy transmitting systems that we humans do not think are living.
It also seems [no definitive proof -- yet] to apply to social organizations of both sapient and non-sapient living creatures.
Assuming that Evolution does apply to social organizations such as human societies, it is far more powerful than our mere wishes and desires, no matter how noble they may seem.
In fact, "noble" may well be a descriptor for human behaviors that are not evolutionarily favored -- for losing behaviors that will, in time, be wiped out by the forces of Evolution.
The potential model I offer for this is the porpoises in the oceans. They seem to be intelligent and perhaps are sapient as we understand the term. If so, their societies are tens of thousands of years older than ours and have thus been molded by Evolution for far longer than ours [which are, at most 10,000 years old].
"Noble" behavior isn't often seen among/in porpoises. They have a variety of very self-serving behaviors, some of which are cooperative and others of which are not.
Maybe, just maybe, the human ability to manipulate our environment to a far greater degree than that the porpoises are capable of, will permit behaviors to us which are not evolutionarily favored to porpoises.
But it sure looks like a long shot.
Still, Evolution always looks like a long shot until after it happens.
wiemercats
New member
No. The plan on the table will only cover 15% of the uninsured. and cost trillions
daniel10492003
New member
No. Somebody has to pay the doctors, nurses, staff, and hospitals. If they provided health care without a paycheck, then they pay for it. I do not think that will work in their family budgets though.