Liberals: How do you feel about the healthcare reform?

[kellyb]

This is a poll for left-wingers only, please.
How do you feel about what passed?

ETA:
You can vote for more than one option on this poll, too. I voted for option 2, 3, and 4, personally. I think it might be better than nothing, but suspect it might make everything worse, and sort of wonder if we were just duped into funneling unprecedented profits into the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

[kellyb]

Shameless bump. :)

[thaiboxerken]

I think it's a good start. I hope the administration does more to improve it in the coming years.

[quixotecoyote]

I reserve judgment until I see whether my wife really will be covered for her pre-existing conditions when she changes insurance companies soon.

[The Fallen Serpent]

I think the teeth of the bill is lackluster in regards to everything but mandatory insurance. Without the public option I find the bill to be a minor step instead of the massive overhaul that it was touted as. Consider I am a strong proponent of Single-Payer and would be happy with a socialized system of healthcare.

[Puny Human]

It could hardly be called "reform", but it's better than nothing.

The lack of a public option really bums me out.

Oh well. If they want human life, dignity, and well being to be sold on the open market like a damn commodity, so be it. I'm moving to Denmark in 3 years anyways.

[Random]

On a scale of one to ten, the healthcare reform bill is a three. The only reason it passed was because the healthcare situation in the US was a two.

[Dave Rogers]

The only reason it passed was because the healthcare situation in the US was a two.

Plus or minus?

Dave

[Ysidro]

It doesn't do enough and I don't always like the way it does what it does but it's better than nothing.

[Meadmaker]

I voted one and three. I'm happy something passed, and I think it's an incredibly important first step. In the approximate words of Joe Biden, it's a big deal.

The specifics leave something to be desired, and there's a big question haning over all of this. How do we pay for it? i don't believe the claims that it will actually lower cost.

[The Fallen Serpent]

i don't believe the claims that it will actually lower cost.
I agree, this is less about costs and more about ethics. For actual cost savings measures we either have to get rid of the old ethics already in place such as no refusal at the emergency room, or remove some of the private elements from it such as private insurance. Personally I am in favor of the latter. Preserve the ethics and work towards cost efficiency when possible.

[Random]

I agree, this is less about costs and more about ethics. For actual cost savings measures we either have to get rid of the old ethics already in place such as no refusal at the emergency room, or remove some of the private elements from it such as private insurance. Personally I am in favor of the latter. Preserve the ethics and work towards cost efficiency when possible.

If we are going to bring costs down, we have to do something about the huge disconnect between the patients who buy medical care, the doctors and drug companies that sell medical care, and the insurance companies that pay for medical care. Obama’s Health care reform bill does nothing about this, so costs are going to keep going up. Yeah, its going to be harder for insurance companies to screw people over, but the basic problem is still there so all this gives us is a little more breathing room.

Nothing was more frustrating in this debate than watching Republican leaders “warning” Americans that Democrats were going to change the very things that make healthcare more expensive in this country, and then Democratic leaders rushing in to “reassure” Americans that that was not the case.

[The Fallen Serpent]

I agree. It is frustrating. The ethics of providing universal medical care and the debate about reducing costs are really two different often conflicting issues.

[quixotecoyote]

I agree. It is frustrating. The ethics of providing universal medical care and the debate about reducing costs are really two different often conflicting issues.

I think they could be reconciled without too much difficulty, if we were willing to recognize that some of the key assumptions the current system is built on need to shift, and not content ourselves with tweaks (albeit positive and necessary) to the existing system.

The goal needs to be making cost effective care available to all citizens. If we start our reforms from that point, of the availability of care, it would require butchering the current insurance industry which focuses on minimizing the availability of care. However, most of America is convinced that this is socialist and therefore bad, and is content to perpetually beg and plead with their insurers to stave off bankruptcy in the face of devastating illness and injury.

/rant

[The Fallen Serpent]

I am actually not certain most of America is always convinced of that. I think it more comes down to politicians not wanting to end their careers for a good cause. So they go for extreme compromise to somewhat please as many as possible, including industry intrests. I think with a properly done campaign the US could get behind a single-payer system. A completely nationalized system perhaps not.

[kellyb]

The elephant in the living room, IMO, is that what we pay (in terms of the % of our GDP) for Medicare and Medicade alone is the amount other countries spend to provide healthcare for their whole population.

We absolutely need to figure out exactly what we're doing wrong there.

The other thing I think we need to do is become evangelical about the need for a transparent, open rationing process. Healthcare rationing can't be avoided, it's been happening since the 70's here in the US, and pretending rationing is avoidable or "really bad" just makes everything worse and keeps the process covert and sleezy.

[willhaven]

Ambivalent at the moment. I was hoping for a public option or single payer. As-is, I think we need some more work to control cost and put teeth into the enforcement.

Regardless, it's better than what was there.

[Shadowdweller]

I think it's stupid and irresponsible to pass judgement before observing the effects.

[MattusMaximus]

Good start. Not even close to perfect. We'll have to make tweeks as time goes on.

[MattusMaximus]

I think it's stupid and irresponsible to pass judgement before observing the effects.

This.

[GreNME]

I think it's stupid and irresponsible to pass judgement before observing the effects.

Which is why I checked every choice-- the poll is senseless.

The provisions in the legislation? They're a good start, and getting the US caught up with the rest of the industrialized world.

[Dancing David]

Better than nothing but far to go....

[ponderingturtle]

The elephant in the living room, IMO, is that what we pay (in terms of the % of our GDP) for Medicare and Medicade alone is the amount other countries spend to provide healthcare for their whole population.

We absolutely need to figure out exactly what we're doing wrong there.

The other thing I think we need to do is become evangelical about the need for a transparent, open rationing process. Healthcare rationing can't be avoided, it's been happening since the 70's here in the US, and pretending rationing is avoidable or "really bad" just makes everything worse and keeps the process covert and sleezy.

It all depends on what one means by rationing. A basic method of rationing, lifetime caps on coverage people think is immoral for one. The problem is that people choose when pushed more expensive, less effective and more risky treatment. This is great if you are making money of the treatment though.