I wish the government would create legislation that is concise and clear. First, they release a 1000 page bill that is intimidating to look upon. Then some representatives complain about public "misinformation" regarding a bill that they probably don't understand themselves, while they seem in a rush to pass it. And they wonder why there is mistrust! I think we need reform in Congress before they try to reform anything.

There are several fundamental things that need to be changed that simply aren't addressed, so this (or any other proposal I've heard of) is destined to fail, even if it passes.

I) Heath insurance is no longer technically insurance. Does your homeowner's insurance pay for your kitchen renovation, or a plumber to fix that leaking faucet? How about your auto insurance, does that pay for getting your fuel filter changed? Upkeep and wellness care (vision, dental, physicals, etc) are not properly within the realm of things to be insured for. Catastrophic care, such as the car accident above or major medical issues, are the proper role of insurance.

II) Tort reform. A medical error should not be like winning the lottery. Absent actual criminal negligence, patients really shouldn't have the right to sue - and when they do, juries have no buisiness determining liability. There needs to be someone deciding, but that someone shouldn't be 12 people drafted specifically for their lack of knowledge of the issues.

III) Tort reform, version 2. Class action suits against drug makers need to go. There is no reason a drug company should need to keep a multi-billion dollar safety buffer in case a drug ends up having adverse effects 20 years later. Again, exceptions for fraud getting the drug passed and negligence in manufacture, but after the FDA clears something that should be the end of it.

IV) Federal pressure on other countries for drug prices. Seriously, there is no reason the US should be footing the majority of drug R&D cost, while countries such as Canada barely pay production costs. This would be reduced if point 3 were to be passed, but would still be an issue.

V) Conflict of interest. It should be illegal for the doctor ordering your MRI (or any other test) to have an ownership or profit sharing arrangement with the clinic aministering it. Remove the ass-covering (point 2) and profit motives for ordering unnecessary tests, and bills don't balloon nearly as fast. Even in clinics, most doctors are contractors, not employees, so they're getting paid by the procedure/visit. Tack this on to profit sharing from clinics administering ordered tests and you have far too much room for make-work cost increases.

*Not really part of this list, but does anyone else find this odd about Obama's reform plan? None of the changes will become effective until 2013, after Obama is safely reelected or out of office. Coincidence? Or just highly misleading for the folks that thought he'd be helping them sometime soon?

Monk, thanks, I really enjoyed your post.  I enjoy hearing how HC works in other areas of the world.  It really helps give perspective on this issue.

For those that read my post, I was refering mostly to what experts from around the world said on an Oprah show.  I intend to read the final health care plan before I get specific with my personal opinions about "it".  

I guess I'm lucky, cause I have a friend in Sweden whom I'm lucky to get to discuss Health care all the time.  Also, a long time friend who's a sherrif, and gets to see inmates get almost total and free health coverage (even dental), while some people he knows "on the outside" have to chose gas money over paying to take their kid to the doctor, or rent money over paying for medication.  I myself, thinking myself "fully covered" via health insurance learned the hard way (and almost deadly way) that insurance companies don't have to deny; just delay, to make a profit. Something is very wrong with any system that profits most by not treating sick/injured/dying people.

I truly don't care if it is all state, federal, private, or any combination.  You should not have to die or go bankrupt if you get sick/injured in this country.  You should not have to fight a greedy insurance company when you are at your very weakest and helpless.  The bottom line for me is that the son of a garbage man should get the same care as the son of a banker with any needed public service, which this country does try to acheive with most important services (water, power, fireman, police ect) but not with healthcare/medicines.

And for those attacking me or others, come on, I/they are not calling names, or yelling, or most even taking sides.  Just talking and giving opinions and learning.  No need to get all rabid from a simple discussion.

Add another one onto your list, true loser pay, lawyer cuts included, legislation.  Court costs, lawyer fees, the works.  If you're not sure of a case, it should never be brought.  The law exists to protect you, not to let you play spin the wheel with your circumstances.

By lawyer cuts, I'm referring to lawyers that go in on contingency, if they're after 40% of the winnings, it's fair that they pay 40% of the bill when they lose.  I can hear the screams from here just posting it.

Along with curbing frivolity amonst both the plantiffs and defendants, it would decimate the trial lawyer population, and we really need more burger flippers.

As far as the dates for his changes, that's been true of all the stuff they've been putting in.  Cap and trade wasn't set to kick in till after he was out as well.  They rigged the stimulus bill to put a bunch of construction jobs into play right before the midterms too.  Wonderful politicians, horrible human beings.

USPS losing money but providing a viable service that UPS and Fed-X do better.

AMTRAK losing money with NO competition...

Both are Gov't administrated/owned...

The number of straw men that appear in these threads is amazing.

And the level of sophistication of some - "Your healthcare system sucks" - is awesome.

If you're truly interested, a lot of this water has already run under other bridges (threads) that remain currently active.

Make it: take 40% if they win, pay 60% if they lose.  That might balance it out a bit.  I'm a hard case, though - I think it should be strictly loser pays (100%).

Loser pays (both the plaintiff & defendant costs) is the simplest, most common sense tort reform.  Wouldn't require any 1000 page document to pull off.

EDIT - sorry psychoak, didn't see yours before clicking 'Submit'.

John D. Ehrlichman: “On the … on the health business …”
President Nixon: “Yeah.”
Ehrlichman: “… we have now narrowed down the vice president’s problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser’s Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don’t think they’ll work, but if the President thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll support him a hundred percent.’”
President Nixon: “Well, what’s … what’s the judgment?”
Ehrlichman: “Well, everybody else’s judgment very strongly is that we go with it.”
President Nixon: “All right.”
Ehrlichman: “And, uh, uh, he’s the one holdout that we have in the whole office.”
President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not to keen on any of these damn medical programs.”
Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”
President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”
Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”
President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.”
Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”
President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”
President Nixon: “Not bad.”

The preceding transcription is from the University of Virginia for the clearest possible presentation (pathway discovered by Vickie Travis). Check - February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm - 5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c.

-This is why insurance companies oppose reform.

Progressives who genuinely believe in reform see a number of health care systems around the world and want to emulate them. Decry the rest of the world's health care all you want, but there's plenty of countries which have a system far superior to ours. It's absurd that dems WANT to raise taxes, because that's political poison. Raising taxes is immensely unpopular and not even liberals like paying them.

Basically most liberals I know simply find our health care system ineffective. Slews of people aren't protected by it and it's frightening to think that your claim might be denied and you and your family could go into bankruptcy when you get sick (and you will eventually if you live long enough).

Thanks psychoak, I knew I forgot one.

VI) Life wrecking penalties for suing and losing. And by life wrecking, I mean your children will never go to college, you will work until you physically can't, no bankrupcy on earth will save you, can't be paid off even if you're Bill Gates scale of wreckage. This should apply in all court cases including criminal cases. In criminal cases, there should be prison time equal to what the defendant would have gotten if convicted.

Although this would be mitigated in large part due to the limitations I placed on points 2 and 3 - I meant then literally. No one should have legal standing to sue unless the person/corporation you are wanting to sue has already been found guilty of fraud or negilgence.

Working on contingency simply needs to be outlawed, and any lawyer who has ever worked for one disbarred. No exceptions.

If you force these insurance companies to take on people who are gaming the system and only paying for coverage while sick they'll go out of business. I just dont' see any solution here other than a public option.

Tort reform sounds good, but at some point you've gotta answer how much money an thumb or leg or kidney, or chronic nausea, migraines, your life, the life of your child, or anything else a botched medical procedure can leave you with or take away.

Not too long ago I remember the EPA had reduced the calculation of the value of human life and there was quite a bit of outrage. It turned out the value had been based on how much additional pay hazardous jobs offer, and people had been performing those hazardous jobs for less and less (I'm sure with the economy that value has fallen even further). So I guess my question when it comes to tort reform is simple: How much are those things worth? What limiting exact value do people want to establish and how is that number deduced? How will that number scale with inflation and other ecnomic factors?

Can't get rid of contingency, if you do that you screw someone with a genuine case and no money.  Contingency has it's place, just not in a lottery system of assholes throwing darts at a board to see if any stick.  People don't work for free.  After you fix the system, lawyers wont have more money than they know what to do with, and horrible reputations to make up for.  Pro-bono case work will be the new unicorn.

Edit:

What, you mean like how we're forced to purchase liability insurance on automobiles?

Actual damages are already calculated based on actual statistics.  No one has a problem with a doctor fucking up(actual fuckup, not "there's a chance this operation might kill you" known before hand risk) and paralyzing a construction worker from the waist down having to foot his future employment drawbacks.  It's the horseshit extra millions that get tacked on afterwards.

Pure opinion, decried or otherwise.

Some remedial reading.  Not all-encompassing, but a start.

What's worse is that you would make organized crime completely unassailable. This idea is batshit insane.

The incompetent prosecutor and judge, the lying cops that faked evidence and failed to document what was actually there?  I'd have put those fuckers in jail in a heart beat.  A guy that was guilty as sin got off because a prosecutor slandered her own witnesses with impecable records and was too stupid to know that leather shrinks when left soaked in blood in a plastic bag, a judge let the defense ask the same question over and over for hours, and dirty cops were too lazy to work the crime scenes properly, planting evidence to make up for it.  At the least the lot of them needed fired, and the cops that planted evidence committed multiple felonies.

I'm guessing you weren't expecting someone to take you seriously though.