Alright Republicans, We Give Up

And similar will be impossible in the USA?

I really can't understand these arguments.
Our mandatory health insurance, for example, doesn't pay for glasses, pay only the basic dental cost and just up to e.g. 70% of the crowns.
But you pay the rest or if you want something with isn't covered either cash or with a bank order .... or your supplementary and/or private health insurance pays it.

The Swiss system is more or less such with all medical 'problems' (= only the basics are paid). (Oh, since you didn't believe it a some time ago, George: Swiss health insurers in the mandatory system [about 50, I think) aren't allowed to make profit, too.)

And similar will be impossible in the USA?

In my opinion, every time a European health system is made reference to, it seems to me that apples are being added to oranges. Not only is the U.S. bigger than any European health system, but our heterogenous society is older than any of Europe's heterogeous societies, and the U.S. heterogenous society has a different history.

So, the U.S. system will have to be unique, since the U.S. is not a cheap "knock-off" of Europe (Thank God!)

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm sure the author lacks both the authority to declare these things and credible knowledge that they're true.

Anyone that can read can check if they are true or not.

The author accurately represents what is in the bill while disputing outlandish claims that are not factually accurate about the bill.

The bill is here
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

If you think the author is wrong about what is in the bill, please feel free to reference the correct text of the bill.

While this will probably cost us Andrew Sullivan's support

. . . a President who doesn't do details. . . .

Regardless of how many liberals post on this forum, the U.S. is center-right. Many are too busy, nor inclined, to verbally joust with liberals.

I agree with that. However, there is a difference between the behavior of a private insurer, when I have the option to choose a different company plan or to purchase another, and the behavior of a government that is clearly seeking to write the rules for all providers.

The consistent rhetoric by many Democrats in support of an eventual single payer system has not been lost on the "ignorant" public. Even though that prospect is not explicitly in the current draft legislation, the possible long range intentions of the Democrat protagonists are fairly clear.

Mostly though it is the evident absurdity of the arguments and the remedies the Administration has proposed - and the issues they have ignored - that is causing much of the public indignation.

The hermaphrodite public/private system we now have already has enough perverse incentives - why create more? Government and insurers act now to limit the number of hospitals, doctors and service providers as a means of containing costs, when in fact increasing the supply is the proven means of lowering cost in a real market. Why hasn't the administration acted to encourage more people to enter the medical field (we have fewer doctors per capita than many western countries); or to subsidize the cost of medical education; or to limit their exposure to liability suits financed by tort schysters like John Edwards????

Alternatively, the administration could have proposed universal basic coverage of routine clinical care and preventive medicine for all, leaving the rest for the private sector. That might be a defensible idea. However, that isn't what is before us.

We are asked to believe that MEDICARE is a wonderful program even though it has ended up costing over ten times what was forecast;

that somehow the administration will find a way to reverse this so far inexorable trend and lower its cost - all while leaving it just as wonderful as before; and to believe that it can in effect extend this program to most of the population without any of the ill-effects we have already seen --- and, perhaps most importantly, we are asked to believe all this can be done by the present Congress (think Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc.) and a president who doesn't do details.

Anyone can check anything in the public domain. The author is providing guarantees, albeit facetiously, that he doesn't know to be true and probably has no authority to make true. The article is merely intended to mock, and has no value whatever as an argument.

I darn near abstained from voting on that particular race, and it sure wasn't because he was center-right.