I think that the problem is that you aren’t really looking at all of these ideas working together. Instead, you seem to see them separately and, therefore, think that they can’t each work on their own.

Eliminating the ban on buying insurance over state lines would also mean eliminating state regulations on health care, so that it wouldn’t just be bought and sold regionally but nationally. This cheaper care, coupled with tax cuts, would allow people to buy affordable insurance.

This is from a column written by conservative commentator Star Parker: “According to Dr. Juno Neal, a New York university economist who was formerly the head of the Congressional Budget Office, 43 percent of those 47 million can afford to purchase health insurance but for different reasons, don’t [purchase health insurance]. Twenty percent of them earn over $75k per year. Of the remaining 57 percent, a third is illegal immigrants and the rest are poor. So, we should be addressing the root cause of poverty, not looking for new ways to expand government.”

Most legal citizens of this country who are uninsured CAN afford it, but they choose not to buy insurance.

The answer is to give those people tax cuts, so they feel more able to afford it, not create a government-run plan that covers people who can already afford private insurance.

You state that mobility would make insurance cheaper because it would allow individuals to pick from the hundreds of providers in the country. You don’t mention that many providers you mention are regional and wouldn’t cover your health care costs outside that region because your care would be out of their system. Just like you can withdraw cash from a regional bank outside that region for a fee, you would have to pay substantial fees to get out of system care. Your idea of mobility over state lines isn’t wrong, it would certainly help with the delivery of services if you were to have a large provider or move within a region, but it would not have anywhere near the impact that you have described.

The idea that tax breaks would solve our problems is old and has almost no merit. This goes back to the issue of the free market and consumer choice. Over the last decade, employer provided insurance premiums have increased 131 percent and employees have seen their share of job-based coverage increase at nearly the same rate during this period jumping from $1,543 to $3,515.4. Most of the costs are no longer passed onto the consumer of the employers goods since these increases are far outpacing inflation and cannot be hidden, but are instead being placed on the employees (whose wages rarely increase at the same rate). To assume that tax cuts would offset those costs for employees is correct, but it is a stop gap. That isn’t a solution. It is short term and fails to recognize that this would merely continue the trend towards more expensive health care. You are looking at a systemic, pervasive problem through the flawed lens of free market, conservatism that believes in the absolutism of the market. The inability to distinguish between a healthy free market and a market based on collusion and greed is very concerning and the real fiscal conservatives on the right really need to take a look in the mirror and see if they are walking the walk or just talking.

And I am sorry, but I won’t just take your word that Democrats voted down a Republican measure that specifically banned government sponsored abortions. Please provide the number of the amendment (assuming you are talking about HR 3200), the vote it was included with, and the specific language you allude to. I will concede the point if you can do that and only that, it is fear mongering otherwise.

And when did national tort reform become the small government Republican’s solution? Isn’t that inherently contradictory to what they stand for? You worry about government panels determining your health, but don’t have a problem with government panels determining whether you have the right to even try and use our judicial system to redress the wrongs done to you?

I want substantive, viable health care reform, but from what I can see, you are offering words and not ideas. You have to show why these words translate to a better reality, and right now I don’t see that. Your nicely crafted words and witty denunciations of the thoughtless Democrats is well and good, but that doesn’t count as solutions. Enjoyed the article, keep it up.

2) Who is forcing people to give up their benefits? Actually, the government plan would. If a business decides to pay the fine that the government imposes on a business that doesn’t provide insurance to its employees (which many business would be likely to do because it would often be cheaper to pay that fine than to provide insurance for all employees), then what happens? People lose their insurance and are left out in the cold because the government plan provided an incentive for their employers to drop coverage.

3) If insurance was cheaper in the first place (thanks to point one), AND people received more money back from their taxes, then yes, health care would be much more affordable.

4) And I think we all know that unless there is specific language in a bill, the government can find a way around anything. Republicans put forth an amendment that would include such language banning taxpayer-funded abortion, and the Democrats voted it down. What would be the harm in having specific language prohibiting it? Oh right, that it would be more difficult for the Democrats to get around that.

These reforms do address the issue: the cost, accessibility, and quality of health care. The public option does the opposite of what we need. And while I haven’t read scholarly work, I have read testimonials and spoken to people in countries with socialized medicine. It’s not popular and it’s not good quality. There is a reason people come to America for medical treatment.

I’m having some trouble with the argument proposed in the bill. The first argument is that shopping for insurance in other states is fine, but if all the insurance providers are engaging in practices of driving up costs, and excluding people for medical conditions to make a profit, shopping around doesn’t help much.

Second point, who exactly is forcing people to give up their benefits, I’d really like to know! Is it the big scary government? Please tell me who exactly is forcing people to give up benefits other than greedy corporate interests?

points 3 and 4 are very good ideas and should be included in future legislation

point 5 I guess should be expected in republican legislation, to answer your question on that Alec, even if you increased the amount of money people received on their returns, it would not be enough to cover the cost of the premiums.

Finally my favorite point, I ask you respectfully to find me the legislation that says the words, taxpayer abortions. I think we all know there is no legislation with such an extreme position, and it is slanderous to say such a thing.

Alec the fact is that the reason these reforms won’t work is because they do not address the issue. A private insurance industries goal is to make money not provide care. If the industry as a whole acts in this manner, no amount of minute changes to the market will stop it. That is why people treat the public option so seriously, in our system of unbridled capitalism we need a government option that will provide adequate care to those who need it while overall bringing the cost of private insurance down.

If you really don’t believe that a public option will work, why not look any country with government healthcare, and I don’t mean right or left wing biased articles, I mean actual scholarly work on the subject, you may be surprised by what you see.

With regard to the first link, I’m not so sure that that’s really a scare tactic as much as it’s a criticism that may be too harsh.

And with regard to your second link, that’s sign was made by a liberal in response to the criticism in the first place, but that’s also a commentary on signs made by conservative protestors at tea parties, not the Republican Party establishment. Of course, protestors on both sides of the aisle will always use scare tactics in demonstrations (I wrote another article dealing with that issue here: http://thepoliticizer.com/2009/10/05/jacobs-stop-calling-our-presidents-hitler/), but to say that the Republicans as a party are using scare tactics is, I think, untrue.

Also: http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/obama_make_up_your_mind.jpg

Pretty sure thats scary to a lot of people. Would be to me if for a second I believed it.