What do you guys think about the whole Healthcare debate?

[Sbane]

I never understood why the public option became the dealbreaker for so many moderates. Having a public option alongside private options strikes me as a much smaller deal than having so much government control over "private" insurance.

It didn't have anything to do with ideology....the insurance companies didn't want a public option so the "moderates" in congress turned against it. In the real world, people would have much preferred a bill with a public option than what we finally got.

[Sbane]

The public option was specifically designed for people of little means--not everyone would have been eligible for it, as it had a means-tested income cap.  In its initial version, it was slated to reimburse doctors at Medicare rates, and when Senate Democrats objected, some percentage was added onto the Medicare compensation rates to placate them.  But, in the end, hospitals and doctors were still not satisfied with the adjustment, so the Senate Dems killed it. 

And more, the same Senate Dems held the bill hostage to ensure they got both extra goodies for themselves and a number of other provisions changed, both to protect themselves from their constituencies and for patronage.  Pelosi did a "skillful" job of wrestling the Blue Dogs to the ground to get the bill the House lefties wanted, but, given the numbers in the other chamber, Reid had far less control of the Senate Dems, and by the time they were done with the legislation, they'd made an incoherent hash of it.  The president, who has no idea how to write sound, coherent health care legislation, was merely at the mercy of this whole process.

The way that bunch handled the health care reform bill was the reason I eventually stepped out of the exit door of the Democratic party.  I'm a strong advocate of wholesale structural reform to our health care system, open to anything that can get everyone covered, hold down cost inflation and improves efficiency, and yes, I do believe ideas from both sides of the aisle as well as ideas from other systems are necessary to achieve all these things.  But the way those guys made a mess of a golden opportunity was profoundly disappointing.

I tend to agree with Anvi's analysis above. I still believe that real reform requires disconnecting basic health care coverage from the employer.

Yes, this is true. But considering how much employers do pay into the system right now, it's easier said than done.

[Sbane]

I never understood why the public option became the dealbreaker for so many moderates. Having a public option alongside private options strikes me as a much smaller deal than having so much government control over "private" insurance.

It didn't have anything to do with ideology....the insurance companies didn't want a public option so the "moderates" in congress turned against it. In the real world, people would have much preferred a bill with a public option than what we finally got.

Assuming that the politicians are completely controlled by insurance companies (which is a bit overblown imo), that still leaves the question as to why the companies were more concerned about a public option competitor than they were the enormity of regulation put upon themselves.

Interesting question for which I do not have a definitive answer for. It is something I hope to learn in more detail over the next few years. I don't think insurance companies are completely happy with the bill, don't get me wrong there. But seemingly it's better than a non-profit, or even worse, a government competitor in their eyes. I think they are right about a government competitor that could get access to capital at discounted rates. A non-profit system regulated by the government is what we should move to, but the public option was not that if I understand it correctly.