Don't Shoot Me For Saying This--But I Think Republicans Have A Good Idea!
Well, they've had good ideas before. The "death panel" that got the far-right in a ruckus was actually a Republican.
I enjoyed Obama's speech last night--it was the most specific and direct he has been to the American people in awhile. However, a lot of people (myself included) have concerns about the cost. I think a public option is a good idea, but I also think that the minority party has done little to spur actual debate on this. Well, except for shouting "You lie!" during a Presidental address.
I do have a question that needs answering, though: Why is Obama against (or at least not really for) interstate competition--that is, being able to buy insurance outside your home state?
Obama said himself in his speech last night that in 34 of the 50 U.S. states, 75% of the health insurance market is dominated by five or fewer states; in Alabama, 90% is controlled by just ONE company! We have a monopoly, or darn near one, in every state--couldn't dropping this regulation help? Why wouldn't it? I hate to say this--but I actually think the Republicans have a good idea! Now, if only they could articulate that idea instead of shouting "government takeover", "socialism", etc., on the teevee and radio machines.
I want something done with our healthcare system, and I agree with almost everything Obama touched on last night. And while I have absolutely effin' had it with the right wing's tactics--and I'm sure most of you have too--you have to ask, isn't there a cheaper way to do this? And what reasons could there be against interstate competition? I tried googling a few things but came up with nothing.
Comments and civil debate are appreciated.
Hillary Clinton was talking a lot of the same thing during the primaries. The "home state" regulation on insurance is one of the stupidest things we have at the moment. Coupled with exchange and universal mandate, it will go a LONG way towards bringing the costs down.
September 10, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that you are right. As long as there are some safeguards in place so we don't end up with a consolidation blitz that ends in ginormous monopolies.
I'm thinking radio deregulation's ramifications. Now we have the same radio stations in multiple cities and now I have to stream radio if I want to hear music that I like.
September 10, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you please give the basis for:
'I do have a question that needs answering, though: Why is Obama against (or at least not really for) interstate competition--that is, being able to buy insurance outside your home state?'
Appreciate.
September 10, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that the public option is an essential piece for reform. However, Obama cited the examples stated in my post as a need for more choice and competition. Having more competition would reduce cost...makes sense to me, anyway. If people are allowed to buy insurance not based in their home state, that would increase competition and reduce cost as much as a public option would...wouldn't it?
I don't have any links to back this up, but it just plain makes sense to me.
Hope that answers your question. :-)
September 10, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I as mainly addressing the query about 'Why is Obama against....
Curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion he is against, or not really for, interstaet competition for insurance entities.
September 10, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I see. Sorry about that.
As far as I know, nothing allowing interstate competition is in any of the bills, and it isn't something he's expressed support for...but I guess that doesn't mean he's against it either.
From Obama's speech though, it sounds like he's still willing to hear ideas from both sides, even though the GOP (as Jason mentioned) are obstructing more than showing general disagreement. Heck, even if Obama scraps everything and does just want the GOP wants, they'd still disagree with him just because there's a (D) next to his name.
My point is that now is the time to start looking at healthcare in terms of good ideas versus bad ideas, rather than liberal ideas versus conservative ones.
September 10, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. I am not sure why the GOP continues to confuse obstruction with objection.
I think Obama realizes that doesn't mean the grassroots of the republican party are unresponsive to comprehensive reforms if we can do them in a cost-effective manner. I think he truly believes, and I agree, that by properly addressing the most glaring issues with the current system, a super expensive public option may become unnecessary.
I am actually pretty happy with how the Senate is handling this debate beyond a few outliers. I suspect they will ensure that whatever bill emerges doesn't make an untenable situation even worse.
September 10, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink