Quote:I don't think the idea was to use this as a bridge to single payer. I think they wanted single payer, knew there was no way they could push that through so just did something to try to help the lowest of the low. We are seeing that immediate impact for the middle and upper has not been well received. Time will tell whether that remains a trend or is just the immediate impact. I don't think the system will be socialized nearly as soon if ever as you predict. 

 

You are right that something needs to be done about the costs in general. That SHOULD have been the first thing done rather what we got now. 

 

Part of doing something about costs would be allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines.  That's a free market concept, something that liberals hate.  Another thing to do is limit liability against doctors and hospitals.  People tend to forget that doctors are human and make mistakes.  The price/cost of making a mistake is huge, especially if it ends up fatal.  Therefor, doctors have to have malpractice insurance that is not cheap.

 

People are always down on insurance companies, but what they do is a risky business.  They put money out and assume the risk.  How about consumers assuming some of the risk involved?

 

Finally, people assume that "insurance" is supposed to pay for everything.  That's not the reason for insurance.  The reason for insurance is to protect you in the case of an extreme condition.  Think of it this way, your auto insurance doesn't cover getting an oil change and your home owner's insurance doesn't pay to get a leaky faucet fixed.  Health insurance is the same.  It should not be there for you to get a physical, pap smear, etc. that are "routine checkups".  It should be there in cases of unexpected injury/illness.

---