Scott Brown Stuns Martha Coakley

[JMohegan]

Guy told me today not to get my hopes up. That the senate passed a version and the house could just go along with it. He's dreaming. This thing is poison.

It's not clear to me that they could shove it through, even if they tried. Most House Democrats hate the Senate version, which constitutes mandated universal coverage with government subsidized premiums and no effective cost control through a public option - in short, an absolutely massive handout to private insurance companies.

In any case, don't worry.



ETA - Netzach, wow. Very trippy!

 

[Netzach]

It's not clear to me that they could shove it through, even if they tried. Most House Democrats hate the Senate version, which constitutes mandated universal coverage with government subsidized premiums and no effective cost control through a public option - in short, an absolutely massive handout to private insurance companies.

In any case, don't worry.



ETA - Netzach, wow. Very trippy!

It's not constitutional. I hate joining in that brigade, in this case, but I must. Unlike auto insurance, in which case driving IS an option in life, this is basically forcing people to buy a product. Slavery is freedom or something. No good, try again.

 

[ZRT]

There will not be a good solution to emerge from the government because this government is not capable of generating sensible solutions at the federal level.

The senate bill is precisely the sort of fucked-up mess that inevitably gets produced, even when they had a sufficient supermajority to theoretically cram through better legislation.

That's the nature of the representative government beast- the representatives get purchased by wealthy interests, and the masses get appeased with the bread and the circuses. That's the lesson of the Romans and the Athenians.

The mess in California is a prime example of how the Athenians fucked themselves at the height of their power, too.

As for the military, the US military has been a fucked up mess for large portions of its history and managed to get itself into shape at certain intervals due to either spells of good management or sheer necessity. But the pre-Civil War military was a mess, the pre-Spanish-American War military was largely a mess seasoned with some sensible heads from the Indian Wars, the pre-WWII military was largely built by Marshall, the pre-Korea military was back to being a mess, then they abandoned the lessons of Korea because a draw wasn't a win and anything other than a win was a loss, so they walked into a grinder in Vietnam after tinkering with that pentomic bullshit. The post-Vietnam military had a hell of a mess going into Grenada. For example, the pilots bringing the troops in had to do their own ad-hoc flight control because the system broke down between all the branches jumping in trying to get their share of the glory.

That said, the government is the only potential supplier of a reasonably viable military because a viable military is something that a for-profit corporation absolutely cannot provide, because a military is a necessity and it's also a massive waste of resources. Fielding a competent, well-trained military is the functional equivalent, monetarily, of taking money straight from the mint and burning it in the street. The US military has a very decisive edge because we've had such financial surplus combined with the willingness to expend it on far more live fire training and realistic training than just about anybody else does when their troops are sitting idle between wars.

It's an example of where we have a necessary waste of resources, military capability, and therefore the government can do what it does naturally, confiscate and waste those resources.

On health care, I could go for some sort of safety net for all kind of thing as a sensible societal measure. But the problem is that there are far too many hands stirring this particular pot for good answers to come from a government solution. The sheer scale of our system means that nobody could predict outcomes with reasonable accuracy. Part of the mess is unavoidable- in order to have standards, you have to have professionals in the fields of expertise setting the standards. But those professionals also have a vested interest in constricting the supply of service to maximize profit. Therefore we have ridiculous standards, and I have to wait four hours for a guy with eight years of education to put a few lousy stitches in my foot, when any nurse on the floor could've done the job, or any of my friends or family members for that matter.

With situations like that, and a million different interests and influences, there's nothing to root for out there. A good bill will not come from either party. And in that case, yeah, I would rather take the status quo than see what sort of sausage the hypocrites who run around claiming to champion the little guy will come up with. At least the hypocrites who thump their bibles on the other side are less likely to fuck me with the mandate bullshit that the senate bill was coming up with.

 

[Netzach]

The status quo is untenable.


I don't have a lot of faith in these imbiciles either but it's simply not tenable.

Talked to an MD lately, or a dentist, or a chiro or someone whose livelihood depends on insurance paying out? I'm not even that interesting as a pt. This is past save the babies and more into: are we going to continue to have MD's in the field, are large businesses going to even pay IN any longer or is health care going to look like it did in pre-revolutionary france, accessible to 1 percent of the population?

How many insured people have to declare bankruptcy before we decide it's dysfunction we can't deal with?

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

What the GOP needs to do is just tell the truth. Just be honest.

"We don't think there is a problem. Period. There are many millions of Americans without health care. Mostly, though, they're not us.

And the skyrocketing costs? Well, if it means some sort of government involvement to control them, then we'll take skyrocketing costs. Our phobia of public anything (except wars or corporate welfare, of course) is much more important to us than the good of our people, or of generations to come. It's even more important than the costs to the economy. Our ideological biases are more important than you. And again, the people we know can mostly afford higher costs.

Sucks for you. But we don't care."

 

[JMohegan]

There will not be a good solution to emerge from the government because this government is not capable of generating sensible solutions at the federal level.

The senate bill is precisely the sort of fucked-up mess that inevitably gets produced, even when they had a sufficient supermajority to theoretically cram through better legislation.

"They" are not a monolithic block. You know this, right?

60 is the new 50, Ben Nelson is an anti-choice extortionist, Joe Fucking Lieberman is a philosophical turncoat and all around unadulterated prick, etc.

 

[Netzach]

Libertarian bone to pick.

Who is more likely to come into your house and steal your stuff?

Guy next door?
Guy in DC when you live in Minneapolis?

I've sat with a friend's hand in mine as city council cut off his dick, using the new shiny eminent domain legislation. The WORST supreme court move in the last 10 years if not way longer, for sure.

But local mafia are the people allowing it to come home to roost. The Libertarian vision of small localized government as inherently better just puts more power CLOSER to you.

I'm told that I have an authority fetish when I like it big and abstract and "keep the Tzar farrrr away from us"

 

[ZRT]

"They" are not a monolithic block. You know this, right?

60 is the new 50, Ben Nelson is an anti-choice extortionist, Joe Fucking Lieberman is a philosophical turncoat and all around unadulterated prick, etc.

I'm well aware that 'they' are not a monolithic bloc. The one uniting factor among all of them from Reid to Dodd to Lieberman to Nelson to Byrd to Specter...

And to Cornyn and Snowe and whoever whoever else you care to pick, for that matter...

The uniting factor is that at the end of the day they're about maximizing their revenue, political gain, and personal stature within the system. You single out Lieberman and Nelson because they've damaged the team most by being the most blatant about their personal stake in things, but they all play that game. The Republicans curse the name of Jeffords by the same token.

Some corruption is inevitable. But the entire batch is corrupted. They're creatures who reflect the area of D.C., not their own states. They just have their own section in the endless gang warfare of politics. Team jersey politics have nothing to do with principle. It's a game, basically, political NFL. The Republicans are riding high right now and looking at major pickups in the midterms, and it's as meaningful as winning the Superbowl. Sure, it feels good and everyone pops the champagne, and then the next day they start planning the next game.

Netz- I'll get ya a longer answer tonight when I get back from work.

 

[JMohegan]

The uniting factor is that at the end of the day they're about maximizing their revenue, political gain, and personal stature within the system.

I agree with this, of course. People in power tend to wield it in their own self interest.

That's true now, same as it's ever been. It's true at the federal, state, county, and city levels. Right on down to the head of the local neighborhood association.

It's also true in business, yes? Big pharma, insurance companies, the AMA, banks, etc.

So the question becomes, if we look around and see a health care system characterized by gross inequity, appalling inefficiencies, and costs that will surely bankrupt the country if we do nothing to rein them in, what should we do?

That's not a rhetorical question; I'm really asking. If you write off the federal government as incapable of improving the situation, then what do you suggest?

 

[JMohegan]

I'm told that I have an authority fetish when I like it big and abstract and "keep the Tzar farrrr away from us"

Haha - a proper blessing!

 

[subwannabe]

Both the far left and the far right are just plain idiots. The far right does want to go on with business as usual and do nothing on healthcare. The far left wants the government to control everything and create another huge bureaucracy, costing trillions of dollars that doesn't need to be spent. Have you ever tried calling or dealing with the IRS or Social Security, etc.? This is what liberals want healthcare to turn in to? Do we want a health system like Canada, the UK, Australia, or some others where you have to wait months to get basic treatments and new procedures for cancer, etc. are refused because they aren't proven yet?

The far left is trying their best to hold onto power to promote their agenda while the far right is doing everything they can to knock the liberals out of power so they can get back in power to promote their agenda. Neither the far left or the far right care a damn about Joe or Jane Citizen. All they care about is being in power to promote their agenda. Thank god for moderate Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans. Hopefully they will be the last ones left standing when the dust clears and the country can get down to business.

 

[JMohegan]

Do we want a health system like Canada, the UK, Australia

Yes, no, yes.

Single-payer health care. That's the most efficient and rational way to fund medical expenses for the citizenry as a whole.

We already have this in the US for select groups, most notably those 65 & older. And if US Medicare is such a catastrophe of bureaucratic hell, why are so many right wingers screaming that we should keep our hands off it?

 

[~Haze~]

I just popped in for a moment and don't have much time to read through this thred right now, but as a Massachusetts resident, would like to comment on the election.

This wasn't much of a shock and I don't think many off us were all that "Stunned". Especially those of us who were following closely. The margin started to narrow, especially over the past few weeks and everyone knew that this was going to be, at the very least, a very close race.

In the final days, Coakley's campaign was mis-managed - in a manner that's become all to common for the Democrats in past elections. To counter that, Brown ran a very effective campaign and continued to chip away at that 'spread'.

Coakley actually reminded me of the Kerry Campaign all over again. It makes you think that they've (Dems) reverted to their old patterns all over again.

In the final days, Brown was out there and in everyone's face - talking, shaking hands, discussing issues and doing so without attacking Coakley. He also talked about what he planned to do in the future, why he planned to do it, and how/why he thought it was the right thing to do.

Coakly was no where to be found (well, not nearly as much as Brown) and her appearances, ads, commercials - littering the airwaves - were all attacking Brown, The GOP, their position on past issues. Her campaign had very little to do with her position on issues (it did have something to do with party position but that's all).

When it came to election day, I think many people felt like they were voting either for an with a candidate with no personality, no soul, no position, no voice. Someone who was simply "a party candidate". By election day, Coakly seemed like this absentee, unapproachable, CEO type with a very "I don't need to listen to you (the people) because I know what's best for you" type of person.

Vs.

A well intentioned, logical thinker, interested in doing the right thing. He was down to earth and very charismatic and many people who met him/saw him/learned about him over the previous weeks, felt like they knew him and trusted him [more than they trusted Coakley, at least] to do the right thing because he was there and accessible. He was at events and talking to voters - asking their opinion and engaging in debates/discussions on issues. He was very engaging an people were feeling like someone was listening to them and if Coakley is the unapproachable CEO, Brown was the hands on executive who walked the floor everyday/knew everyones' name/and was going to be there and look you in the eye the next day.

 

[rosco rathbone]

The status quo is untenable.


I don't have a lot of faith in these imbiciles either but it's simply not tenable.

Talked to an MD lately, or a dentist, or a chiro or someone whose livelihood depends on insurance paying out? I'm not even that interesting as a pt. This is past save the babies and more into: are we going to continue to have MD's in the field, are large businesses going to even pay IN any longer or is health care going to look like it did in pre-revolutionary france, accessible to 1 percent of the population?

How many insured people have to declare bankruptcy before we decide it's dysfunction we can't deal with?

The Ezra Klein/Paul Krugman pundits will have you believe that the public option fight was a minor sideshow. The truth is that it was the key ideological battle.

 

[subwannabe]

I hear constant complaints about Canada's health care system. Yes, it is free but the healthcare sucks. Ditto the UK. As far as Medicare goes, there are many doctors and providers who refuse to take Medicare patients because the government is such a mess, does not adequately reimburse them for their costs and takes forever to send the checks. A bunch of red tape. If the t's aren't crossed and the i's aren't dotted the government doesn't pay and the providers have to start the billing process all over again. These providers have to hire a lot of extra workers to file all of this crap with the government, rising costs all by itself. The government spends millions of dollars to pay the people who issue out all of this red tape and if we have some kind of public option the government will be paying out billions just to the workers who provide us with all of that red tape, before they even spend a penny on the actual healthcare!

 

[00Syd]

Alright, so let's get rid of medicare! It's obviously a failed program that's doing more harm than good. Get the government out of my grandma's healthcare!

 

[midwestyankee]

I hear constant complaints about Canada's health care system. Yes, it is free but the healthcare sucks. Ditto the UK. As far as Medicare goes, there are many doctors and providers who refuse to take Medicare patients because the government is such a mess, does not adequately reimburse them for their costs and takes forever to send the checks. A bunch of red tape. If the t's aren't crossed and the i's aren't dotted the government doesn't pay and the providers have to start the billing process all over again. These providers have to hire a lot of extra workers to file all of this crap with the government, rising costs all by itself. The government spends millions of dollars to pay the people who issue out all of this red tape and if we have some kind of public option the government will be paying out billions just to the workers who provide us with all of that red tape, before they even spend a penny on the actual healthcare!

Anyone can gripe and moan and pass on second-hand "wisdom" but it's pointless unless you have a better idea or unless your real point is solely to subject us to your whining.

So tell us, what's your better idea?

 

[JMohegan]

I hear constant complaints about Canada's health care system. Yes, it is free but the healthcare sucks. Ditto the UK. As far as Medicare goes, there are many doctors and providers who refuse to take Medicare patients because the government is such a mess, does not adequately reimburse them for their costs and takes forever to send the checks. A bunch of red tape. If the t's aren't crossed and the i's aren't dotted the government doesn't pay and the providers have to start the billing process all over again. These providers have to hire a lot of extra workers to file all of this crap with the government, rising costs all by itself. The government spends millions of dollars to pay the people who issue out all of this red tape and if we have some kind of public option the government will be paying out billions just to the workers who provide us with all of that red tape, before they even spend a penny on the actual healthcare!

Complaints from actual Canadians, not paid stooges for this country's right wing? PAGING KEROIN! Sheesh.

If your t's aren't crossed and i's aren't dotted, do you think private insurance will pay those checks? If you answer 'yes' to that question, then you've clearly never filed a substantive claim.

As for providers having to hire workers to file "all of this crap," you're right, that's a big problem - but not for the reason you think. Doctors have to file for reimbursement from somebody; the process is a whole hell of a lot more efficient in a genuine single-payer system. Meaning: the "crap" is the proliferation of forms, payers and processes that comes with a patient base involving literally dozens of payment sources.

 

[JMohegan]

I hear constant complaints about Canada's health care system.

And what do you hear from Americans? Here are relative responses to Gallup.


http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa78/johnmohegan/galluphealthcare.gif



http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa78/johnmohegan/galluphealth2.gif

 

[ZRT]

Libertarian bone to pick.

Who is more likely to come into your house and steal your stuff?

Guy next door?
Guy in DC when you live in Minneapolis?

I've sat with a friend's hand in mine as city council cut off his dick, using the new shiny eminent domain legislation. The WORST supreme court move in the last 10 years if not way longer, for sure.

But local mafia are the people allowing it to come home to roost. The Libertarian vision of small localized government as inherently better just puts more power CLOSER to you.

I'm told that I have an authority fetish when I like it big and abstract and "keep the Tzar farrrr away from us"

I'm the opposite. If I see 'em, I can fight 'em. If they're in my town, I can deal with 'em.

Dirtiest places on the planet are your average city councils, because nobody pays attention to the elections. I'm guilty of that as much as anybody, but part of the reason for that is because the big show is now federal. If we had more functional power devolved into localities, there are two distinct advantages I can see:

One, it's on a scale that the average folk can affect. They can organize, they can fight, and they don't have to go to Washington for pointless sign-waving to do it.

Two, if my county goes batshit, I can move to the next county. If my country goes batshit, there's a hell of a lot more hassle to get out of it. Again citing the example of California, a brilliant example of direct democracy added to having your cake and trying to eat it. If Cali fails, it's painful and it's miserable on a lot of people, and ultimately the rest of us are going to have to bail them out, but at least it's easier to contain the damage if one component of many is fucked up, as compared to a centralization that lets, say, your Bush administration fuck everything up.

I agree with this, of course. People in power tend to wield it in their own self interest.

That's true now, same as it's ever been. It's true at the federal, state, county, and city levels. Right on down to the head of the local neighborhood association.

It's also true in business, yes? Big pharma, insurance companies, the AMA, banks, etc.

So the question becomes, if we look around and see a health care system characterized by gross inequity, appalling inefficiencies, and costs that will surely bankrupt the country if we do nothing to rein them in, what should we do?

That's not a rhetorical question; I'm really asking. If you write off the federal government as incapable of improving the situation, then what do you suggest?

I suggest that it's pretty much a force of nature at this point and the issue won't be resolved until sheer collapse of the system creates a new system. I certainly don't trust the morons in D.C. to engineer an answer. I wouldn't even trust sensible people to engineer and answer to this one, because this system is so large and chaotic that the unintended consequences of any action will be massive, and the loopholes will be found quickly to continue as many corrupted processes as possible.

I'm nihilistic about the state of our government. It's to the point where only a reboot and a new OS is going to clean things up. Past that, we're just bailing the ocean with a teaspoon.

So why do I keep wandering by to doomsay at times like these? Because I think it's largely pointless for people of intelligence and character to get wrapped up in what amounts to political soap opera. I stand by my Super Bowl analogy- Obama wins the White House, the suckers that believed in the hope and change rhetoric party like it's 1999, the Republicans piss and moan, and four years later we're back at square one with a new ball game. The next candidate coming up will. I bet you, campaign on being a Washington outsider (if he or she can) who is going to 'clean up this town'. Similar noises will emit from whoever's in the minority in Congress.

And the cycle continues.

 

[Netzach]

Both the far left and the far right are just plain idiots. The far right does want to go on with business as usual and do nothing on healthcare. The far left wants the government to control everything and create another huge bureaucracy, costing trillions of dollars that doesn't need to be spent.

That's my plan, for sure.

Have you ever tried calling or dealing with the IRS or Social Security, etc.?

Yep. Have you called the IRS in the last 20 years? Ever called your health insurance? Want to know which is fairly reasonable and which is like calling a loan shark?

This is what liberals want healthcare to turn in to? Do we want a health system like Canada, the UK, Australia, or some others where you have to wait months to get basic treatments and new procedures for cancer, etc. are refused because they aren't proven yet?

I have a stubborn, chronic, incurable condition. I talk to people in these locations frequently when I'm digging up online support so I don't go crazy. The only difference between their treatments and mine is that my money is taken up completely with them. If you talk to people on this board from these regions with health issues, you aren't hearing stories about curtailed lives and red tape. As for having to wait for drugs, sometimes I think that might be in the interest of the sick, versus the companies who crank them out. They were feeding everyone who wanted it tysabri till people keeled over. Oops.

The far left is trying their best to hold onto power to promote their agenda while the far right is doing everything they can to knock the liberals out of power so they can get back in power to promote their agenda. Neither the far left or the far right care a damn about Joe or Jane Citizen. All they care about is being in power to promote their agenda. Thank god for moderate Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans. Hopefully they will be the last ones left standing when the dust clears and the country can get down to business.

Yeah thank GOD for the guys who are forcing us to buy product.

 

[Netzach]

I'm the opposite. If I see 'em, I can fight 'em. If they're in my town, I can deal with 'em.

Dirtiest places on the planet are your average city councils, because nobody pays attention to the elections. I'm guilty of that as much as anybody, but part of the reason for that is because the big show is now federal. If we had more functional power devolved into localities, there are two distinct advantages I can see:

One, it's on a scale that the average folk can affect. They can organize, they can fight, and they don't have to go to Washington for pointless sign-waving to do it.

Two, if my county goes batshit, I can move to the next county. If my country goes batshit, there's a hell of a lot more hassle to get out of it. Again citing the example of California, a brilliant example of direct democracy added to having your cake and trying to eat it. If Cali fails, it's painful and it's miserable on a lot of people, and ultimately the rest of us are going to have to bail them out, but at least it's easier to contain the damage if one component of many is fucked up, as compared to a centralization that lets, say, your Bush administration fuck everything up.

Yeah, this is an agree to disagree point. Suffice it to say I see it completely in reverse, and I'm very skeptical that I can rally to fight the bastards with the help of the nearest people who put them in.

 

[JMohegan]

I suggest that it's pretty much a force of nature at this point and the issue won't be resolved until sheer collapse of the system creates a new system. I certainly don't trust the morons in D.C. to engineer an answer. I wouldn't even trust sensible people to engineer and answer to this one, because this system is so large and chaotic that the unintended consequences of any action will be massive, and the loopholes will be found quickly to continue as many corrupted processes as possible.

I'm nihilistic about the state of our government. It's to the point where only a reboot and a new OS is going to clean things up. Past that, we're just bailing the ocean with a teaspoon.

So why do I keep wandering by to doomsay at times like these? Because I think it's largely pointless for people of intelligence and character to get wrapped up in what amounts to political soap opera. I stand by my Super Bowl analogy- Obama wins the White House, the suckers that believed in the hope and change rhetoric party like it's 1999, the Republicans piss and moan, and four years later we're back at square one with a new ball game. The next candidate coming up will. I bet you, campaign on being a Washington outsider (if he or she can) who is going to 'clean up this town'. Similar noises will emit from whoever's in the minority in Congress.

And the cycle continues.

I understand what you're saying here, and am in large part sympathetic. I see this as a profound ethical dilemma, faced by all "people of intelligence and character," with no clear solution or answer.

On the one hand, the collective political apathy and inactivity of intelligent people is surely one major cause of our problems as a nation. After all, politicians *do* face periodic elections. In theory (and, occasionally, in practice) this should provide some accountability. In theory, intelligent people should be able to band together, put forth a worthy candidate, and present a compelling message to get him/her elected.

On the other hand, booting the crooks and bastards happens so rarely that one does have to question the percentage of intelligent people in the populace at large. Ditto the response when the electorate palpitates for a charismatic individual with zero intellectual curiosity, like Sarah Palin.

It seems to me that political apathy is the honorable path IF one concludes that the majority of the citizenry is hopelessly, irreparably ill-informed or just plain stupid. Certainly, I can understand why one might be tempted to reach that conclusion.

It is tougher for me to see honor in apathy overall. That is to say, if one concludes that improvements made through the political system are quixotic goals, then a person of "intelligence and character" might reasonably be expected to seek improvements through other means.

For example, if the inner city school is crap, one might volunteer to mentor individuals. If farmers have no reasonable insurance options, one might form a cooperative
like this. What one does would depend on individual skills, education, etc. The broader point is that, in all but the most extreme situations, apathy and good character are mutually exclusive.

 

[subwannabe]

I never said we shouldn't do any kind of healthcare overhaul. I just said making a big government run bureaucracy is the wrong idea. We can do pretty close to what Obama wants without doing a public option or expanding Medicare. What everyone's mistake is they think it's the health insurance industries fault that healthcare costs are skyrocketing. It's not. They are only raising their rates because health care costs are rising! It has been proven that their bottom line profit percents are far smaller than health care providers and companies. Thats why the pharmacutical industry was okay with kicking in billions of dollars for Obama's plan. Here are a few ideas from the mess that were actually good ideas:

1. Pass laws not letting the insurers refuse coverage or dump insureds due to health conditions, age, etc.

2. Pass some kind of laws against insurers discriminating when it comes to setting rates

3. Pass tort reform. Providers have to charge a bunch just to cover their malpractice insurance in case someone sues them for billions. This not only causes the providers to charge more for premiums alone but they have to order a bunch of uneccessary tests to cover their buts in case they do get sued. People should be able to collect damages but their should be a limit to it.

4. Allow insurers to sell policies accross state lines, increasing competition to help drive prices down. This will make insurance more affordable for the middle income.

5. Provide government subsidies to people under certain income levels to help them afford insurance. This would help the lower middle income class afford insurance hopefully to the point where Medicaid would kick in for the really poor.

These are just a few ideas off of the top of my head which would go a long way toward giving Obama what he wanted without having some government control of healthcare, which would cost us a bunch to impliment and would turn into another huge government run entitlement program.

 

[Netzach]

What everyone's mistake is they think it's the health insurance industries fault that healthcare costs are skyrocketing. It's not. They are only raising their rates because health care costs are rising!

Do you know what percentage of an MD's extremely highly paid time is taken up with NON CARE work, because of the myriad private beaurocracies involved in healthcare in your average corporate-clinic? MD's no longer "do care" much at all - they dispense, move em through, and wrangle payment.

Sure, the insurance industry has not shaped healthcare one bit since 1970.

1. Pass laws not letting the insurers refuse coverage or dump insureds due to health conditions, age, etc.


2. Pass some kind of laws against insurers discriminating when it comes to setting rates

3. Pass tort reform. Providers have to charge a bunch just to cover their malpractice insurance in case someone sues them for billions. This not only causes the providers to charge more for premiums alone but they have to order a bunch of uneccessary tests to cover their buts in case they do get sued. People should be able to collect damages but their should be a limit to it.

4. Allow insurers to sell policies accross state lines, increasing competition to help drive prices down. This will make insurance more affordable for the middle income.

5. Provide government subsidies to people under certain income levels to help them afford insurance. This would help the lower middle income class afford insurance hopefully to the point where Medicaid would kick in for the really poor.

These are just a few ideas off of the top of my head which would go a long way toward giving Obama what he wanted without having some government control of healthcare, which would cost us a bunch to impliment and would turn into another huge government run entitlement program.

1. That'd be swell. It still doesn't really address what happens when you are ill and insured. Most bankruptcies are declared by sick, insured people.

2. I can't fathom how this hasn't been passed, but unless you CAP and not just insist that they can now charge everyone whatever they want as long is its equal, nothing changes.

3. What limit would you like to see if your significant other died because an MD ordered an MRI to go in search of a scalpel left inside them after surgery? (real case.) Would 100 grand be excessive? Maybe only 50 if it's your baby, they don't bring in any dough.

4. Well, it works OK in other exchanges, like auto insurance, which is held to guidelines. No guidelines and now the only improvement is that my hours-long calls to Blue Cross are now interstate and toll free. Whee.

5. Dude, we couldn't even agree on SCHIP. Subsidies are going to look like 200 dollar Bush tax cuts, and if you're self employed you'll still be left holding the bag. What percentage of a "lower middle income" person's budget should be taken up by insurance if you're say, a waitress making 18 grand with 1 kid. Versus without a kid? Versus one of many 27 year olds who are having shit luck finding a job at The Gap? And if one person uses the line "young and healthy" around me, I'm putting them on ignore. "Everyone can afford another ---$" is such a load of crap. Maybe if you live in a town where you can split a place for 200 a month, but the likelihood of having a JOB in said place that pays above minimum also goes down.