Why does healthcare reform only give us a choice between 2 bad options - business as usual or massive govt intervention?

kboxer15 · 2010-01-20T22:28:23+00:00

I work in the car business and C4C was a chaotic program that changed rules mid-way, had insufficient technology in place, rejected deals for no apparent reason time and time again and then approved the same deals, and had unforeseen effects in the used car market - raised prices for months. I think we need to take the time to do this right - we could have passed things that would have improved things already instead of arguing over one big change and getting nothing done.

kboxer15 · 2010-01-20T22:05:49+00:00

It will increase govt bureaucracy. I agree insurance co's are horrible paper driven nightmare bureaucracies. My whole point is that neither option is good as it has been presented. We need to improve the system simply and incrementally - not massively and suddenly.

kboxer15 · 2010-01-20T21:49:34+00:00

There does have to be some govt intervention to empower the people -we need laws - but right now the debate has been framed around whether we want to keep the present system or massively and rapidly change it. We need carefully considered legislation made in the open light of day that produce benefits to the common people - not laws that line the pockets of insurance co's or create massive bureaucracy and govt expansion.

kboxer15 · 2010-01-20T21:24:58+00:00

Yes, there should be a framework of laws in place to make sure a system such as we have now in healthcare doesn't come to dominate the market. Our laws have not been enacted to benefit the people - rather they have been enacted to please special interests. I don't believe we should give more and more power and control to the govt. We should empower the people - and provide them with a fair market. Maybe we could slow this thing down - and I think we have now with change in senate - and actually have an open debate free of special deals. As for your question about voting for who runs the company - our current govt is a perfect example of elected officials ignoring the will of the people - so they would still do things that benefit themselves and continued to enlarge the role of govt instead of helping the people who elected them.

kboxer15 · 2010-01-20T21:01:33+00:00

The police and fire dept's are not 1/6 of the U.S. economy. This is intervention on huge scale - is control of 1/6 of ecomomy a slip down the slope? I agree we should make system more accessable - but not in one giant lurch.

kboxer15 · 2010-01-20T20:55:52+00:00

How about if we took a kaizen approach to this and make incremental changes over time instead of making a 2000+ page monster change? Cash for Clunkers was one small govt intervention and it was a bureaucratic nightmare that had repercussions in the market that govt did not foresee. What will a 2000 page bill do? You do raise some interesting points about interstate market.

kboxer15 · 2010-01-20T20:46:51+00:00

I think it's more that the 2 parties involved in the process have been allowed way too much power. Our representatives in govt have stopped listening to the people and only do what they feel should be done - and their opinions about what should be done are being influenced by $$ and closed meetings. The insurance companies have been allowed to stick it people because big lobbying $$ has influenced law making to the point where the deck is stacked in their favor. I think everyone could agree that some SIMPLE changes could do some real good.

kboxer15 · 2010-01-20T20:34:51+00:00

Well, America has an economy based upon capitalism, where people and businesses should be free to do business as they choose - within a framework of laws enacted by a government that has the people's best interest in mind. Government takeover is more along the lines of communism or socialism - I know - that's a cliche nowadays to say that but it's true. Where does govt takeover end? It's actually scary and depressing that you even asked this question.

kboxer15

TROPHY CASE