So, essentially, House Dems are proposing AdultBasic Plus here? It appears to be aimed at eliminating the 80K waiting list for existing Basic by using the state’s tobacco money along with draining the “medmal” account. I’m not convinced this is the way to go. Anytime the topic of health care arises, I ask a simple question. “What is your ultimate goal”? Are you looking to get the uninsured covered? Are you looking to improve quality? Would you like to “eliminate” private insurance and have government become the state’s (or nation’s) PCP? Most of us, no matter what product or service we’re talking about, would like the best possible quality at the lowest cost. I believe with health care it should be no different. To get there, we need to take a comprehensive approach to this issue. What is the main obstacle in the uninsured getting covered? Cost. A large number of the uninsured are either employed by a small business that cannot afford to offer coverage to it’s employees or work as independent contractors. Some are college students or recent grads that are either unemployed or believe they are going to live forever and forgo coverage. Any bill that claims to be driven by a desire to expand access to health insurance needs to start by addressing those groups, primarily because that’s where a large portion of the uninsured exist. I’d argue that, for independent contractors and college kids that are relatively healthy, refundable tax credits that would allow them to buy into private plans would make the most sense. You simply do not need to completely overhaul the entire health care system when the problem of access can be solved through something as simple as a tax credit. I believe the same principle applies to employees of small businesses. I’d glad that most bills recently proposed in Harrisburg and Washington realize that cost to small business owners is the main obstacle to offering health care to their employees. Offering a subsidy or other financial incentive (or utilizing association health plans) would seem to be a logical and viable option here. Now, what of cost? What drives costs upward in health care? I’d argue that two main culprits exist here – costs of long-term care for disease or illness (especially toward the end of life) and overhead expenses by insurance companies. I’ve never understood why those who argue for government-run health care promote the idea that millions of dollars will be saved if “only the government ran health care”. Are people never going to become ill again? I suppose the bureaucracy in Washington (who would be charged with overseeing the health care of nearly 300 million individuals) would somehow shrink? The tax increases that would be needed to fund such a bureaucratic apparatus would far exceed any conceivable savings to American taxpayers. The issues of cost begin with the individual. No matter who provides health insurance (i.e., the government vs. a private company), true health care begins with one taking responsibility for their own health. It really doesn’t matter who you get your insurance from – if you smoke three packs a day and received 90% of your meals via a drive-thru window, you’re probably going to end up with a hefty bill (or a series of hefty bills) from hospitals at some point in your life. Similarly, whether insurance is provided by the government or private companies, if either entity refuses to streamline their overhead costs by utilizing computerized records and other technological advances, the ultimate cost to the taxpayer is the same. As I don’t want to add another chapter to “War and Peace”, I guess I’ll close by saying that when it comes to health care, I believe we sometimes are guilty of thinking ourselves too far away from the core issues involved. Access and cost can be addressed within an existing system that, for all it’s faults, is actually not that bad. I know those who feel health care is “a fundamental right” don’t care for the insurance industry (apparently they prefer dealing with government bureaucrats over industry bureaucrats, which is like saying you’d rather be stabbed than shot). However, if you’re ultimate aim is to improve access and/or quality, please explain how transferring responsibility for health care to government achieves this? I’ve yet to hear a convincing case.

Gent, you must of had a little extra time today. I’m reminded of your gun control point that the remedy begins with the individual when you say that every person is responsible for their own health. Health care is one of those huge problems that breaks down to a very personal and individual dilemma. It is a dilemma that for so many people is controllable through a healthier lifestyle and a deeper respect for oneself. It’s not a mystery that the healthier you are the less your health care costs. Change your oil when your supposed to and your engine will last a long long time.
JP

or lose their home – because they get hit by an idiot driver on the turnpike, or even worse, get diagnosed with a life-threatening illness. We should do better in this country for those circumstances, regarding healthcare coverage.

The comment above about personal responsibility must be from someone lucky enough to have no-questions-asked employer health insurance, but that does not seem to make a difference to insurance companies who raise your rates on individual insurance (without telling you why) even if you don’t go to the doctor, and live a healthy lifestyle.

As more people become unemployed or underemployed without health insurance – this is a huge problem. When GM says that they cannot afford to manufacture a car here in the US because of healthcare costs – we need to start looking at alternatives.

Single payer insurance is a good start, because it would force insurance companies to become competitive, remove this cost obligation that is currently tied to employment, and remove ridiculous restrictions like “pre-existing” conditions like if you ever had a cough before.

Another scam.
Getting government out of medicine would produce more doctors who would charge lower prices, and, for most under 30, they’d have money to take care of their families.
Can’t have that. Have to tax them viciously.