1) Did we have time for health care reform? No, not that year. I think we wasted too much time on health care rather than really working out what we were doing with the economy. I think more consideration could've been spent on what kind of bank reforms if any should be put into place, and also what the possible ramifications of a fall in the Euro would be, and how to prevent one. We got seriously blindsided by the PIGS problem which should've been completely foreseeable. Much like the American TurmOIL post, I would argue that this is a mistake that is a matter of national security. Aside from the money lost by not focusing on the economy, if the cost estimates are not exactly correct, we could be facing increased debt, decreased economic productivity, or both. Our economy has to be the priority in this case and it wasn't.
2) Do we have the money? This is a two part answer because we are attempting to do two things: make the system more efficient, and increase coverage. Yes, we needed to do it from a financial standpoint to make the system more efficient and cut waste in the years to come. No, we cannot afford to, at the same time, risk expanding coverage to 100% of Americans. I don't think very many people actually believe we'll save money by doing this, and even so, it should've first been tested to be a more efficient system, THEN maybe have it forced upon everybody if necessary. The big variables that I think the government may not be correctly accounting for are how private insurance companies, drug companies, and hospitals will react to the changes. Their economic predictions thus far give me little optimism for their ability to forecast through the duration of the implementation of the bill. There are far too many variables and too slim a margin for profit.
3) Partisanship: holy cow, this was THE WORST case of partisan bickering I have ever seen. The dems with their overwhelming numbers managed to pass a bill that I think completely lacked any sort of democratic process, and I blame both sides equally. Had the Reps had more constructive criticism than "start over," I think they could've gotten a lot more in the bill, and America could've had a superior health care bill. The Dems obviously had the numbers and in the absence of constructive criticism pushed the bill through in what should be considered an illegal pace. The bill is SO long that I would not even consider skimming through it, and it was supposed to be read and voted on in 72hrs!?! Come on. Surely this will set a new precedent and define a new method for the exclusive use of stacked Senates. Fooliboosting? Haha, sounds like a naming contest in the making :P
4) What's in the bill? Honestly, who knows!?! I have a great page that'll do side by side comparisons of different proposals, but I seriously still have no idea what's actually in the bill. I also have this more user friendly but outdated timeline. But knowing how it was, how it is, and how it should be are all far beyond my knowledge of the health system. Feel free to comment if you know better.
5) What's NOT in the bill? Conservatives, feel free to chime in here, I forget what major beefs the Reps had with the bill, but from all the articles I could find only 6 real ideas posed by Reps made it into the 1000+ page bill. That's a pretty poor showing.
Conclusion: No time, no money, no consensus... but seriously, who didn't see this coming? Did anyone watch the elections!?! Obama ran on the platform that he was going to radically change health care to make it affordable, available, and mandatory for all. I wasn't a fan of it then, and I'm not now, but it's something everybody should've at least expected.
Well, think this post is long enough without the rant about over-population, and longer unhappier lives. Additional RELEVANT!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!1!! !!!!!1! ... !!!! insights are welcome.
btw, I know this post is lacking a lot of sources, I may add them in the future, but if you want some, just ask for them. Sorry, still a little exhausted from being sick.
