Quoting / dave / <arouet at winternet.com>:
> [I'm trying to figure out what the catch is, because the bill has
> "bipartisan support", notwithstanding the potential for tax increases,
> and - shudder - "universal coverage", which as we all know smacks of
> socialism. But by any other name... who knows. The cigarette thing is
> probably already a lock, for the most part, as major metro areas like
> Minneapolis have already passed bans to varying degrees that go into
> effect this week...]
The catch is that the bill is what I call "the auto insurance" model (or "Bud from Repo Man" solution <http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0402/1533.html>). That is, everyone has to get health insurance. It is a solution to the "problem" of young healthy people correctly deducing that health insurance is a big rip-off for them. This is usually coupled with a relaxtion in insurance regulations so there exists a slim benefits/lot of cost-sharing plan. There is nothing "socialistic" about universal private coverage or removing health insurance regulations. The best people can hope for is that proposal includes a few progressive ideas like no excluding prior conditions.
I have been harping on this point to dreamy eyed "progressives" for years without much luck (access is an issue but COSTS born disproportionately by the poor and sick is also a problem). There is considerable support for "universal" health insurance in right wing think tanks these as a way of monetizing more of the health care delivered and making people "own" their ill health.
Jim
"You feel disgusted and confused Manipulated and abused You're not the reason, you're just the means It's a brutal little lesson in being free."
-Jon Langford and his Wacos Hermanos