So can someone break it down for me?

[quark219]

As much as I'd like to be 100% informed all the time, there have been so many ups and downs, twists and turns, highs and lows in this public health care saga that, frankly, I've lost track of what's going on. I work 60 hours a week and have limited time to keep up. So: Can someone break it down for me?

So far as I can tell, what we are going to get is a close-to-meaningless "public option" that will be available to only 2% of the citizens. This means that for 98% of America, health care will still suck.

Have I got that right? Am I missing something? And... *this* was the change we could believe in?

Someone please tell me I've got it wrong.

[notesdev]

1. handy summation in 6 letters

BOHICA

[Horse with no Name]

2. sans vaseline. n/t

[quark219]

3. Aha. It all makes sense now.

We were told that we would find a "uniquely American" way to address the health care crisis in America.

And, by Jove, we have. ONLY IN AMERICA would be spend this much time dithering, then come up with a gimmicky solution that does nothing to solve the problem, and then have to listen to our legislators crow about how much hard work they've done to usher in this monumental legislation that preserves the status quo. Things were monumentally fucked up before--and thanks to their hard work, it will be monumentally fucked up for our children, too.

"Uniquely American," indeed.

Honest to God, I try to be an optimist. But this country is going right down the toilet.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. My health care doesn't suck. Most of my friends are happy with their current situation.

[quark219]

5. Well, being happy is good. However, please consider --

1. You say your health care doesn't suck, which (of course) is great. But have you ever received health care in another well-to-do country? I've received health care (including surgery in all three instances) in the United States, Switzerland, and Finland. Comparing my health care experiences among the three, I'd say the United States was FIRST in terms of hassle and expense and LAST in terms of quality.

2. But let's put aside comparisons for a moment. I am fortunate to work for one of the best companies in the United States (at least I think it is: it's been in business for 35 years, pays its employees well, and has never had a layoff). But over the past five years, I have been increasingly fed up with how my health care costs are taking a larger and larger bite out of every paycheck, yet every time I get a prescription filled or visit a doctor, my copay has increased. On top of that, it now seems I have to haggle and fight with the insurance company over every lab test or treatment. I'm a healthy man and I find it exasperating--I can't imagine what the situation must be like for someone who is chronically ill.

3. Again, you say you are happy with your health care. That's great. But if you experience a catastrophic illness, there's a very good chance your insurance company will find a way to disappoint you. They may find a way to deny you coverage based on a form you filled out incorrectly. Or determine that you had a preexisting condition. Or raise your premiums so high overnight that you have no choice but to let your policy lapse. Only in the United States (among well-to-do nations) is virtually every citizen living under the constant threat of bankruptcy should they become seriously ill.

In my experience, people in the United States who are happy with their heath care have either never experienced anything better, and have no basis for comparison, or have never had a serious illness that put their health care to the test, or both.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. There are problems. I just don't think 98% of people think that their healthcare sucks.

[OllieLotte]

7. I agree with you.

The problem is the cost. Having the government pay for it isn't going to make it less expensive. Nobody really believes that. When people make choices for medical care like they do when buying pretty much everything else in their lives, then we will see the cost go down. Not before.

[Tumbulu]

8. Your post sound like wrong wing rhetoric.

One doesn't know anything about their coverage until they become sick or use it in any way. Medical costs cannot be lowered by outsourcing- like shoes or clothing or any other product. It is a service and thus costs are connected to time and for educated people to spend time figuring something out and then treating it takes money. Unlike all the other products sold in the US, this one can't be outsourced.

I have a little note in my diary written in 1967. I bought riding boots- they cost $112. Guess what those same boots cost today- $87. So, why? Every single part of the process is done by someone paid at lower wages than us here. Transportation is subsidized, animals are more tortured (in the name of efficient use of calories to product), all to get those boots to be made for less money and sold for a higher margin to the retailer.

Can't do that with medicine.

It costs a lot. I think that the main reason the government does not want to be in charge of health care is that it wants the nasty corporations to be the ones rationing health care, not them.