|
Arpig -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/24/2009 12:52:11 PM)
|
quote:
Aug 4th is dead, and the more time people have to read a 1000 page pile of garbage the more they will notice its stench. I haven't read the bill, and have no intention of doing so, but good, bad, indifferent, if its 1000 pages of dense legalese, then Damn straight people need a lot more time to read it and understand it. Having read some laws, I know how fucking hard it can be to understand just what they mean. Trying to rush this thing through is a bad idea on something as important as this. If this bill gets passed, and it is flawed, you guys will be stuck with the results for a damned long time, I just don't see the topic being revisited any time in the near future.
As I said, I don't know what is in the bill, but the pressure to pass it immediatly certainly gives the impression that there is something to hide. Surely there is little harm in taking the time to understand the bill and to debate it properly, a few months more will not make that much of a difference one way or the other. The present Canadian system was nearly 40 years in the making, allowing all the various governments involved to tailor their systems and to deal with the various problems that arose. The process continues to this day, with each level of government continually tweaking their programs to improve them. This is one of the reasons why our system works as well as it does, because it wasn't a rushed half-assed band aid solution.
From what little I do know of the bill, I would be willing to guess that it is flawed, simply because it tries to patch together a government run universal plan with the existing for-profit model of health care and coverage. What I see resulting is an abortion of a system which will combine the worst aspects of the present system with the worst aspects of a government run system (and there are bad points). I agree with those who are opposed to having health care decisions based on profits for the insurance companies (and that is what happens in many HMOs), and by trying to preserve their profit margins while extending health care coverage to everybody regardless of their ability to pay is bound to create a Frankenstein of a system. With the existance of a tax supported government program, you will see more and more employers deciding not to fund private plans for their employees, which will cut into the insurance company profits, resulting in higher premiums and even more pressure to deny treatment whenever possible. The government should set a minimum coverage that is automatically extended to all and sundry, and allow those with the desire and financial means to purchase more comprehensive coverage. This system works and works well, all have health coverage, those with the means have better coverage, and insurance companies make money....seems like a win-win to me.
Those who argue that the federal gvt doesn't have the authority to run a health care program may well be right, in Canada health care is specifically reserved to the provinces, this is dealt with by the federal level setting certain requirements and standards of care which the provincial programs must comply with in order to get access to federal funding for their programs. The US lawmakers would do well to aim for a similar method, allowing each state to run its own program, and controlling minimum standards through the power of its $$$. Canada and the US are very similar in nature, both being federations rather than unitary nation states on the European model and the basic approach that works here has a really good chance of working south of the border as well.
|
|
|
|
