David T. September 17th, 2009

It's hard not being Republican in conservative evangelicalism.
Anyway, while you bring up some good points about health care reform, it barely scratches the surface. Nonetheless you are to be commended for your civility. It is sad that today, civility on these issues is so uncommon.
However, we must differentiate between health care reform and insurance reform. What started out as health care reform has ended up being insurance reform instead, albeit very weak (at least in the Baucus bill).

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself the question: can quality, affordable care for all be achieved under a for-profit health insurance system, with or without regulation. If your answer is yes, then your solution is to inflict stronger regulation on these companies- insurance reform. If your answer is no, your solution is to set up a different system entirely- health care reform.

As with most things, the answer lies in the middle, or rather a little of both. Health care reform is politically unpopular right now because by definition, it calls for at least partial socialization of insurance (public plan), greater socialization is involved with a single payer system, and complete socialization is involved with nationalized healthcare as found in the UK. Those on the right say that any socialization goes too far. And because socialization in any form involves increased government expenditure, that's yet another big strike against it in the current political climate. You can shoot for a revenue-neutral solution but that is a target which may or may not be achieved on a consistent basis.

Insurance reform, on the other hand, does not deal in socialization but in regulation, setting up rules like those that would prevent rescission, denials based on pre-existing conditions, etc. It can also involve setting up a federal agency to be the watchdog over the health industry. It is under this category that we find mandates to form cooperatives, abolishing conflicting state regulations, and the like.

A true solution to our problem is found in a combination of both, and here's why: some level of socialization is needed to protect the health of the American public from unbridled profiteering. There will always be someone trying to make a buck from health insurance without regard to the welfare of their customers. A public plan, single payer, or full nationalized healthcare would, in respectively increasing levels, prevent this.

On the other hand, socialization brings its own evils, and the competition of the private market has much to offer in the way of improved products and services, not to mention being a large part of our economy. So complete nationalization such as found in the UK is not the answer. We need to keep the insurance companies around, but regulate them.

Republicans want an "insurance reform only" solution.
Democrats want "insurance reform" and "health care reform."
Any rational observer will admit a mix of both is necessary.
Hence Democrats have a more rational solution.

Republicans snipe on Democrats for not talking about "tort reform" or setting up and agency to root our fraud while the beam in their own eye is that they are unwilling to countenance any sort "health care reform."

Democrats wanted single-payer/Medicare for all. Public option was their compromise. And now the Republicans won't even tolerate that. Where are the compromises on the Republican side? There are none.

Steve and Tony, you pretend to represent both sides of the aisle (conservative vs. liberal) when your short talk was focused exclusively on insurance reform. In this way, you both come across as republicans. Civil republicans, but republicans nonetheless.

Some Democrats are now defecting over the lack of a public option in the bill. Ex-insurance industry exec Wendell Potter says the current bill (Baucus) is a giveaway to the insurance companies. A thinking Republican ought to be worried right now. With pretty much every Republican except Snow refusing to compromise anyway (including Baucus), the Democrats have nothing to lose by swinging hard left and going for what they wanted in the first place- single-payer. The GOP needs to deal.

David T. September 17th, 2009

Corrections: Baucus is Democrat, Snow is spelled Snowe. Pray forgive my mistakes.