Hype about the health care vote

Unfortunately, decisions are being made by the citizenry based on advertisements from special interest groups and what appears to be a great deal of misinformation about the contents of the proposed legislation, and neither side in the debate about health care reform seems particularly eager to really present anything but slogans. Much of the media has done the public a great disservice by not countering the hype with a genuine discussion that is based on facts.

I think anyone who is paying attention knows that something needs to be done about healthcare in the U.S. Health care comprises about 16% of the GNP of the US in comparison to about 8% of the GNP in most countries with national health care systems. Some 35-40 million people in the US are uninsured. For all our vast expenditures longevity, infant mortality, and almost any other measure of overall health status are not better in the US.

The question is whether this health care bill makes any of the necessary fundamental reforms that will improve health care access, reduce costs and improve the overall health status of the nation. Almost all national health care systems cover everyone but not everything. This bill seeks to cover everyone and everything (a sure path to financial disaster).

In about one page, one could have outlawed exclusions for preexisting conditions, created national health insurance pools, made your insurance portable, and capped tort awards for pain and suffering.

One also needs to revamp payment systems to incentivize preventive care and positive outcomes as opposed to fee for service (the more you do beneficial or not, the more you get payed).

At this point if health care is not passed now it will be another few decades or perhaps another few generations before national health care can be passed in the US. The democrats are going to be punished in the fall anyway so they might as well accomplish something before they lose control of the congress. This is a bad bill, unnecessarily complex, which includes few of the fundamental reforms necessary to improve health outcomes and control costs but currently the only game in town. Politics is the art of the possible not the art of the ideal and public opinion (often misinformed) always plays a major role in elections. The Republicans have nothing to offer in the realm of national health insurance and it is not likely they ever will; for it is contrary to fundamental republican values about the role of government in society.

Sometimes, even if something should be done, it is better that nothing be done than that what is proposed be done. It is a matter of choosing between evils.

That may be true.

In this case it seems to be either go without national health care for another few decades or generations or pass a flawed bill and hope to fix it later.

Sometimes, even if something should be done, it is better that nothing be done than that what is proposed be done. It is a matter of choosing between evils.

Is it really another evil? We know our current system is "evil", and i prefer to do whatever it takes to fix it.

The fact that the current system is bad does not mean that any replacement won't be as bad, or even worse. Is it really as bad or worse? Well, that is what some people have been arguing. Apparently you don't think they are right.

I have no opinion about this new bill. It might be bad, or it might not be.
What i do know is that the current system is bad, and we need to replace it.
I think what is worse is not doing anything about our current system.

Nothing could be worse than just not doing anything? What if the alternative were to force all physicians and hospitals to treat people for nothing, at the point of a gun?

It seems if doing something is better than nothing nothing, and that there is a 50/50 chance of the new bill being better than, or worst than our current bill, then we ought to switch. There is no doubt about it. What is not clear is the cost. Suppose the new bill is better than our current bill, then we have a positive cost M. If the new bill is worst, then we have a negative cost N.

If M-N > 0 then we ought to switch to the new bill.

I think the problem ought to be given the economist, social scientists, decision theorists to solve. It is not something that the people in the white house can do.