Scott Brown

[fpb]

Wow.

To the last minute, I never thought he could make it.

I am in two minds about this. On the one hand, I did not want to see Martha Coakley in the US Senate at any price; her part in numerous injustices showed her to be, at the very least, bad at judging and obstinate in sticking to misjudgments, and obstinacy in error (especially murderous error) is the last thing one wants from a powerful elected representative. On the other hand, I simply do not want health reform defeated a third time, even though the barely examined Democratic proposals have "bad news" written all over them. A poor system can be reformed, but a nonexistent one must be. And please, all of my libertarian and conservative friends - we have been over this. You will not convince me of what I know to be wrong.

Comments

[arhyalon.livejournal.com]

No health reform is much, much, much better than a bad one.

So far, all the US Congress has proposed is legistlating that everyone needs to buy health care...that really isn't going to improve things over here.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

No, Congress proposed
* requiring insurers to insure all applicants, at the same rate, even if they're sick
* mandating people to get insurance, so they don't game the system (i.e. waiting until they get sick)
* subsidizing people who need help purchasing such mandatory insurance

Plus various experimental cost control and quality improvement measures, but those three items are the heart of this style of reform, and far more than what you described. They improve things by ensuring everyone can get insurance, with the price being that everyone has to get insurance.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Because I'm happy with the French health system and would wish a variation of it to Americans everyone, I am appalled at the bureaucratic nightmare Democrat legislators (or, more likely, their technocrat aides) cooked up. Extending Medicare and tweaking it would have worked a zillion times better (and the legal text would fit on the back of an envelope, the hallmark of a good law.)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Quite right. I don't disagree in the least. What bothers me is that this will become another stage in the superstitious narrative that you simply cannot have a healthcare system in America like you have in every other advanced country - because America is "special". Whereas it could have been done already, if they had not gone for a monumental and incomprehensible concoction with dishonest features in the matter of abortion.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

France is nice. But our style of reform is similar to the Swiss, German, Dutch, and Japanese models. Not exactly hellholes of illness and bankruptcy. Even more similar to the Massahusetts model, already in place.

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

The basic problem with the proposed "reform" at this point is that it doesn't establish a system which could be reformed. There is no so-called "public option" on offer anymore; the remaining mess is largely a massive package of concessions to various special interest groups, including the private insurance industry.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

That is the impression I got as well; but the bill is so monstrous that I think that only two or three people in the world know everything that is in it - and at least one of them has probably gone mad. 8-)

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

I am sure that once the event is not so fresh, there is a short story to be found in it entailing some Lovecraftian conspiracy.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Nonsense. The basic system could be further reformed by later adding a public option; nothing rules it out. Or by extending subsidies, tightening the profit caps on insurers, allowing Medicare buy-in (as shot down by Lieberman)... there'd be plenty of reform path.