If we get a trillion-dollar "healthcare reform" policy that doesn't improve quality and significantly reduce the cost of health insurance, it will give more credence to the republican mantra of "Government involvement in healthcare is what's been driving up the costs of healthcare."
Obama says it's not about ideology, but a very expensive, not-so-effective healthcare reform policy would be a victory for conservative ideology, a victory that would eventually put other government healthcare programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP etc. in political danger.
People need to seriously consider the dangers of a bad bill.
I agree that we need to end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, rescissions against those who get sick etc., but new regulation to outlaw discrimination against pre-existing conditions, rescissions etc. wouldn’t cost a trillion dollars and shouldn’t be used as a selling-point for a trillion-dollar "healthcare reform" policy, especially if the final version doesn’t include a PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION. If we can’t get a TRUE PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION, it would be better to pass legislation that would outlaw discrimination against pre-existing conditions, rescissions etc., independent from healthcare reform, CAP INSURANCE RATES, to prevent the inevitable price gouging that would occur with the enacting of these new regulations, but do this without providing the billions in subsidies that would have gone to private insurers under healthcare reform. Subsidies that were designed to offset the billions it would cost insurers to cover the rescinded, the already sick and injured etc., then wait until private insurers have gone through enough of their own money trying to follow the new regulations (covering the rescinded, already sick and injured) that they, and their republican puppets, are ready to accept anything, including a public option, just so they can get reimbursed (through government subsidies) for the billions they’re going through trying to follow the law (new healthcare regulations)
I would like to see republicans vote against outlawing the discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, rescissions against the sick and injured, caps on insurance rates etc. That would be a sure loser for them in 2010. But I don’t think it would come to that. Republicans know they can’t afford to vote against outlawing those practices. What would happen is the new health insurance regulations would pass (with republican support), and then private insurers would soon start squealing for government subsidies to offset their new costs. It wouldn’t take much of that for them to be ready to accept anything (including a public option), just to get some government help to offset the billions they’re spending trying to cover their new customers.
I think this is the kind of arm-twisting that might work.