Before reading my rebuttal please please please read Avian30's counterpoints to my points on health care over here on Failed Messiah. The link will appear on a new window.
The only reason why I am responding on my blog and not on Failed Messiah is because Failed Messiah seems to be having technical problems (which happened before) and my comment isn't going through.
Ordinarilly I would respond on the blog where the debate is taking place.
Now for my response:
>> This will effectively abolish regulation of the health insurance industry, which is probably why Republicans like it. But it would also be quite wasteful and harmful.
This is nonsense. Federal regulations will exist.
>> If for-profit health insurance companies cannot provide any useful function to consumers that justifies their profits, then they are useless to society and we should all rejoice when the goverment puts them out of business. And if they do provide a useful function to consumers that the government cannot provide that justifies their profits, then it's hard to understand why they would have difficulty competing.
If there is a sector of patients that are too small for private insurance to handle then sure the government should step in. This already happens with pharmaceuticals. It does not mean that the government should compete with private insurance with stuff that private insurance is able to handle.
>> If you do some research on health care systems in other countries, you will see that health insurance (and arguably health care in general) is another area where government is far more efficient than private companies. You can start with this Commonwealth Fund study.
I'm not reading all that crap. Make the points yourself dude. Sometimes I link to other pages to make my point but not stuff that's soooooo long to read. That being said, private companies are always more efficient than government. Obama himself said it best when he said that UPS and FedEX are doin fine and it's always the post office that's having problems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS12Z-MJpvw
>> No, the only way to get into a public plan would be through the health insurance exchange. And if your employer is eligible to participate in the exchange, the decision of which plan you choose will be your decision alone. Your employer will not be permitted to choose for you.
This is the first time I heard baout "Health Insurance Exchange" because noone seems to talk about it. After googling it, it appears that Health Insurance Exchanges aren't magic button to solve everything. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/health_insurance_exchanges_the.html
>> How so? Anyway, many states already ban discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, including New Jersey and New York. It is called community rating. But it is not really sufficient without mandates and subsidies.
Genius, just because it's done in some places does not mean it's not constitutionally grey.
>> I don't think anyone has studied this more comprehensively than the CBO. And the CBO found that some tort reform proposals typically made by Republicans seem to reduce health care spending a little, while others seem to increase spending a little. It is perfectly reasonable to support some tort reform proposals, but it is not reasonable to use this as an excuse to oppose any legislation that does not include them.
More stuff that takes too long to read. -.- And there's people who disagree. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/12/tort-reform-could-save-health-care-54-billion-says-cbo/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002816.html http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/12/tort-reform-could-save-54-million-report-says/
>> The moral argument for this is that when you end up in the emergency room with no health insurance and incur a $200,000 bill that you are unable to pay, it is not fair for that burden to fall on the rest of society. The economic argument (which I find more persuasive) is that a health insurance system with community rating and guaranteed issue but no mandates leads to high premiums at best, and collapses from instability at worst.
You can argue until you are blue in the face. It is wrong to make people pay for existing and making people pay for health insurance is too much like that. I have a link on my blog that says Nancy Pelosi wants people to go to jail if they don't pay for health insurance. That's crazy.
>> Private insurance companies can do this already on the individual market.
It's different when the government regulates and when private companies offer products with terms and conditions.
>> No, the recent bills cost the federal goverment around $800 billion to $1 trillion or so over a 10 year period to expand coverage. To put this in context, economists project total health care spending in the US will be around $40 trillion over the next 10 years.
To say that this kind of spending will not worsen inflation is silly. The Democrat's health care plan is not the plan of a Clinton Democrat. At least Clinton Democrats valued balancing the budget, even though these putzes did it on the back of the military.
>> And further, after cost-cutting and taxes, the recent bills reduce deficits rather than add to them. It is hard to imagine how this could cause inflation, even if we get out of this economic crisis within the next 10 years. (As a consequence of the economic crisis, we are currently suffering from deflation. Some inflation would be nice.)
Will cost-cutting mean quality-cutting? O.o Also, i'd like to paraphrase Ann Coulter a bit, 'Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Adding 40 million uninsured Americans to government health insurance will not increase the debt. And I want my 40 million layered chocolate fudge cake that does not put on weight.'