So what would a bipartisan health care reform bill include?

[jack sommerset]

What makes you think that is such an unheard of thing? Don't you know anyone who has lost a job due to ill health and then can't get coverage? Because I sure as do.

Did I ever suggest univeral converage in my post? No.

Your suggestion otherwise is a classic example of the way you respond in this forum. You use reductio ad absurdam reasoning to try to discredit any position that you cannot refute. I am reminded of the admonition given me by my older brother once a long time ago, to whit,
"It is considered bad form to agree to a battle of wits with the unarmed."

Therefore, I will try to stop responding to your posts.

Probably best you stop responding or better yet, don't start threads asking for peoples opinions.

I have no clue what "univeral converage" is so how did I suggest it smart and witty guy.

[boutons_deux]

Jack doesn't seem to know that there are at least 6 job seekers for every job, blaming the other 5 for not having a job, for taking unemployment they paid for, and for not paying taxes.

Jack's world is a simple and stupid as he is.

[jack sommerset]

Jack doesn't seem to know that their are at least 6 job seekers for every job, blaming the other 5 for not having a job, for taking unemployment they paid for, and for not paying taxes.

Jack's world is a simple and stupid as he is.

You're an idiot.

[TeyshaBlue]

Jack's world is a simple and stupid as he is.

Irony much?

[baseline bum]

I would add eliminating the healthcare benefits exemption in the tax code. You can call it a tax hike if you like, but it would certainly help make people more cost-conscious when making healthcare decisions.

This is critical if this country is to operate under a for-profit health system, but I cannot see either party pushing this because it looks bad in commercials and in 2-minute answer segments on Nightline. I cannot picture a congressional candidate getting up on Meet the Press and giving a lecture on probability and telling how insurance is the pooling of risk for security against very unlikely and independent events. He'd have to argue that health insurance isn't like fire insurance (say. outside of California deserts), where you really can say fires are independent events, thanks to fire departments that are here to put your house out before it sets fire to the rest of the neighborhood. You'd have a of a case to make that government intervention in the form of untaxed health benefits artificially propping the insurance industry gives negative utility to workers, because it is after all a tax increase. Our media isn't setup to allow discussion that doesn't fit between commercial breaks.

[SnakeBoy]

This is critical if this country is to operate under a for-profit health system, but I cannot see either party pushing this because it looks bad in commercials and in 2-minute answer segments on Nightline. I cannot picture a congressional candidate getting up on Meet the Press and giving a lecture on probability and telling how insurance is the pooling of risk for security against very unlikely and independent events. He'd have to argue that health insurance isn't like fire insurance (say. outside of California deserts), where you really can say fires are independent events, thanks to fire departments that are here to put your house out before it sets fire to the rest of the neighborhood. You'd have a of a case to make that government intervention in the form of untaxed health benefits artificially propping the insurance industry gives negative utility to workers, because it is after all a tax increase. Our media isn't setup to allow discussion that doesn't fit between commercial breaks.

Tax breaks GOOD! Tax hikes BAD!

[ElNono]

If the public option is impossible without price controls then that's a pretty damning admission that the public option is incapable of providing health care as efficiently as private insurers. In other words, it defeats the entire point of having it in the first place.

There's nothing efficient about private insurers as far as reducing cost is concerned. That's exactly why you're reforming in the first place.

I would say the public option would be required to be profit-neutral, much like the postal service. They should also establish prices. I understand this would most likely destroy private insurers and that's ok with me. It will also probably limit the income of a majority of medical staff, and that's ok with me also. You can also move to a non-covered specialty with no price controls where you can try to make more money if there's enough of a market (ie: Plastic surgery). Same thing with private insurers, where they could offer a 'premium' service for a fee.
As far as drugs go, I would severely limit patent protection for them. Just let the company recoup costs and earn a capped max as surplus, then the drug turns into a generic free for all.

Now, there's nothing bipartisan about this proposal. I don't think even some democrats would like it.

[ElNono]

I cannot picture a congressional candidate getting up on Meet the Press and giving a lecture on probability and telling how insurance is the pooling of risk for security against very unlikely and independent events.

Statistically speaking, there's nothing very unlikely about healthcare after certain age. Which is normally when people get moved from the for-profit private system to the government run system. It's actually a great scam.