re: #70 jamesfirecat

Well single payer would obviously be my way of doing it since this is a tested idea that other countries have implemented before, and given how simple it is, the system wouldn’t require too much in the way of oversight.

Of course single payer== More Tax && single payer == SOCIALISM which is why we’ve ended up with the patchwork creature of Obamacare instead…

Single payer is the way many countries go but in the it isn’t ideal (Canada and the UK, for example) with lesser services- and may say quality of care- now the rule of thumb. That’s why I like Obama’s one size does not fit all idea, allowing the states to craft their own versions (as in populated states versus less populated states having different needs). I believe acknowledging single truth will help get him re elected. That both sides are curiously silent tells me he hit the mark.

Also, the original idea was to make sure 33 million uninsured had access to health care.

I do wonder if we wouldn’t have been better offer starting with insurance reform, disallowing insurance companies from offering coverage to anyone. From there we could have moved on to health care reform, absolutely necessary given demographic trends.

What bothers me most is how both sides want to reduce the conversation to slogans as opposed to having a serious discussion.

Have you seen the LGF page on ideas for health care reform? Some really good stuff in there.