Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

I don't think that's at all clear. Had Clinton done nothing, it's entirely possible that now or sometime in the future a pres could have gone all the way in one step.

But I'll grant you that Clinton's half-keeping of his campaign promises on gays in the military probably sped up the final step.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

It doesn't matter what the Left really wants, because they don't have the votes to get it. The capital-l Left really wants single payer, because it thinks the government does health insurance pretty well and can use its clout to control prices. I think you are right that the Left cares more about universal coverage than about cost control. But: the Democratic Party does not do the Left's bidding; if it did, we would be having a bogus argument about the constitutionality of single-payer instead of the mandate. Centrist Democrats care about cost-control, in the way that centrist Republicans used to back before the few remaining examples were corralled on reserves in Connecticut to try to preserve breeding pairs and genetic diversity.

Meanwhile, middle-class voters want insurance because they really, really don't like risk of having their personal finances wrecked by an illness to themselves or a family member. Most middle-class voters would be content with a system that covers them even if it doesn't cover the lower class, just so long as it doesn't cost too much. But: we had that system and it isn't stable, because of the incentives to leave people uncovered and because of the rising costs. Democrats made health-care reform a priority because voters want it, not because of what the Left wants.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

It's not just the "left" that doesn't want your propose. It's nearly everyone, including most republicans and the entire health care and health insurance industries.

ETA: Btw, personally, I'd call your propose the third best solution, behind single payer and the PPACA. Because yes, I care about universal coverage.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Most normal people care about universal coverage because they really, really want to be able to get health insurance. They just think about it as a personal issue rather than a political goal.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

You are changing and mis-stating the framing of the question. It would not be calling for a federal law, but stating that he believes the discrimation in existing law is discriminatory (for no rational reason) and unconstitutional.

LessinDresden

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

A huge percentage of middle class voters do want insurance - actual insurance. What they don't want is what we have now, which is a TPA structure in which they're never sure what is and isn't going to be covered, and everything is radically marked up to offset low reimbursements (so if they find out after the fact that they're not covered, they'll owe a monstrous bill they could never hope to pay).

The system you discuss is not untenable. We've never tried it. There has never been a nationally embraced system in place where people paid out of pocket for preventative care and used low price catastrophic/chronic policies for everything else. Why? Because that system wouldn't have adequate cash sloshing around in it to subsidize care for those who use HC and never pay anything. The aim is, perpetually, subsidize those who cannot afford care by forcing as many people to contribute to the pool as possible. The aim should be, push costs lower, to allow those who currently cannot afford care to perhaps do so in the future.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

I need universal coverage to get health insurance? From where have I been getting the health insurance I've had all my life? Have I hallucinated it? Seems possible, as under your definition, I'm clearly in the abnormal camp.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Of course the insurance companies don't want it. That's the best indication it's a worthwhile, cost-saving approach. And the fact that a lot of McRepublicans want to preach about free markets while remaining too lazy to take control of their own health care is hardly persuasive.

I don't want universal coverage for the same reason you shouldn't - a waterfall of new patients competing for care. We've a shortage of doctors already. Would you prefer to have a hire a concierge practice, or have your already stressed physician pushed to see a dozen more patients per day? You provide services, and so you understand - more bodies to service, lower quality of service. Call me selfish, but I want a doc who has the time to actually pay attention to what he/she is doing.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

What you're describing is a failure of regulation. Every insurer has the incentive to play games with coverage "after the fact." Only the wealthiest individuals and companies can afford to fight with insurance companies once they have a claim. Everyone else needs to rely on regulators.

I will defer to RT on this one, but I think that no one who actually understands health policy, including the insurers, wants a system where people pay out of pocket for preventative care, because people then predictably do not get enough preventative care and have worse health later, which is bad for them and bad for everyone else. For this reason, I believe most insurers who are in it for the long haul prefer to cover preventative care. The ones who don't are worry that the insured is going to drop the coverage before they get sick. Running the system on that model is not in the national interest, obviously.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

You want coverage and don't care whether other people have it. But everyone wants coverage, and they don't want it to go away if they change jobs or get sick. In other words, what they really want is universal coverage.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

If your first paragraph is right, why is Hank so certain that the PPACA was so bad or the Dems in the last election?

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

you can't argue with a guy who feels school desegregation ended in the 50s.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

no. most normal people have, and did have, health insurance. they're the ones the President promised will be able to keep the insurance they had. And they didn't really really want it, they really really didn't want you guys to fuck up what they had.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

On this, we don't see the world differently. Time and distance make what might initiially be described as "a timid half-step" into "the critcal first step."

On civil rights, I'm not sure what you mean. Apparently you think lynching is a good thing, or it's okay to support it if you're just a senator.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Same difference. "This President believes the Constitution REQUIRES you -- your state, and your church -- to let gays marry!!!!"

Battle lines drawn. And since you (I think it was you) have correctly pointed out that state initiatives have all gone against gay marriage, how do you think the next election would go if based on that issue?