This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
That's true by AquinasDomer
I was contrasting the Bismsrk model with that. I think that
A) it's more likely to get to through gradual reform/evolution and
B) Harder to screw up in the long run (more actors to stop you from arbitrarily freezing benefits) and
C) easier to incorporate supplementary insurance/split off things that are able to be priced in a more free market manner.
I think proposing single payer gives insurance companies something to run against (big gov taking your docs away) vs attacking insurance companies for distorting the market and regulating them.
Granted, the new way to attack reform seems to be calling anything that reduces spending cutting Medicare, so this probably won't get resolved until we're staring at the edge of the fiscal cliff.