My problem is that the Obamacare proposal doesn't address the issue to astronomical administrative costs. Adding a "public option" only makes more paperwork for doctors and patients to wade through.
About the low income people, they would be provided with subsidies based on their income. I can't imagine they're going to require the poorest of the poor to pay much out of pocket. To be completely honest, I don't know the details. I'm definitely in agreement with you that mandatory insurance via government coercion isn't the best way to go about it.
The problem is that despire the efforts to reform the whole mess, almost all of the solutions being debated still cling to the profit model of the insurance companies. The best solution would be to abolish these companies, or at least regulate them heavily enough that the interface between a patient, doctor, and insurance company never varies. This would drastically reduce the whole mess of paperwork and administrative costs associated with insurance.
The whole aversion to single-payer is really too bad, though.
About the low income people, they would be provided with subsidies based on their income. I can't imagine they're going to require the poorest of the poor to pay much out of pocket. To be completely honest, I don't know the details. I'm definitely in agreement with you that mandatory insurance via government coercion isn't the best way to go about it.
The problem is that despire the efforts to reform the whole mess, almost all of the solutions being debated still cling to the profit model of the insurance companies. The best solution would be to abolish these companies, or at least regulate them heavily enough that the interface between a patient, doctor, and insurance company never varies. This would drastically reduce the whole mess of paperwork and administrative costs associated with insurance.
The whole aversion to single-payer is really too bad, though.
- Meatball
