$138 Billion in Savings Over 10 Years is Worthless | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
That's the crux of the issue (none / 0)

A mandate for private insurance vs. a mandate for a single payer type system are two completely different things.

Another general issue that few are discussing is why anyone is confident that we're going to strongly enforce the new regulations on the private insurance industry and or that the industry won't find severe loopholes. And of course it's entirely possible that (as I've pointed out) when Republicans inevitably regain power (possibly directly because of this legislation in some ways) they'll exploit flaws in the system to further weaken regulations and gut the subsidies that mask inevitable price increases. And don't forget that it's not just about insurance premiums, it's also about co-pays, deductibles and drug costs. Just one loophole in one area can royally screw us.

Yes, I realize that technically that's possible with any reform, but it's specifically relevant in this case because the proposed reform is so damn weak and because it ultimately strengthens the private, for-profit system. That means it should be especially easy to take a mediocre system and make it downright horrifying in a relatively short period of time.

I know it's possible that might not happen, but of course the industry lobbyists are going to be fighting for that the DAY after the bill passes, especially with elections coming up.

by Tom Hanc on 03/18/2010 09:49:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A difference (none / 0)
One difference between a single payer system and a system that includes a mandate to buy private insurance is that the federal government has the actual authority to institute the former whereas it does not have, by any fair reading of the Constitution, the authority to institute the latter. A mandate to buy private insurance, I believe, can only be constitutionally supported by the interstate commerce clause but the argument that that clause provides the authority is, to borrow a term, weak sauce. The constitution clearly authorizes the federal government to impose taxes to promote the general welfare, however, so I believe there is no constitutional problem with a single payer system. To me, the distinction is important. To the extent the government acts beyond its legitimate authority, it is a government of men and not laws.

by Corpusless on 03/19/2010 07:18:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]

$138 Billion in Savings Over 10 Years is Worthless | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)