Charlie Rose

REMant  01/13/2010 02:20 AM Report

The insurance industry said they objected to the lack of a universal mandate to buy insurance in the latest iteration of the Senate bill, which is neither surprising nor unreasonable, tho, of course, they wanted that because they expected to be able to make more money with more ppl covered even if the amount they make off each is less. That is what they've always said, and it is the basic idea behind insurance. They say they are willing to accept what amounts to a single-payer system with cost controls as long as they are in the loop, and, personally, I think that is a better option than what is being proposed. And the unions are for that, too. On the other hand, the White house and Senate spokespeople were being completely disingenuous about the report, which seems accurate as far as it goes, but I do not think the insurance industry is at fault for most of the price rise in health care. I suspect this is because they view "the public option" as the camel's nose under the tent, leading the way to a govt takeover, but also because they are unwilling to see that the problem is mostly of their own making, and not the actions of a few ogres and bad ppl. And I can't see this emerging from the Finance committee without a "public option" as any kind of a triumph. Especially not as I agree with the insurance ppl that it is a very bad bill, which will not come close to the savings expected. I noticed that they sent out the spin doctors, too, which leads me to believe the admin doesn't view it as much of triumph, either. The problem we have with the insurance cos is that we have never in our history been able to decide whether they are private or public agencies. In 1868 the Court proclaimed them public, even though they were in fact private, which lasted until 1944, when they decided they were private after all, but then the Congress intervened to dump the whole question onto the states. Insurance IS a public good, however the insurance cos have been virtually forced to become private health care providers as a result of govt actions that enticed employers to offer plans in lieu of pay raises, and because of the way Medicare is structured. I think we need to undo all of that and move back either to a free enterprise provision, or to a single-payer system, the latter either restricting the degree of coverage by higher deductibles or limited to catastrophic situations, with aid to the needy and unemployed being separate. The present coat of many colors can only as in the Biblical story become a focus for envy and misdeeds.