>>>>/edit/
>>>>
>>>>We do not agree. Further continuing the analogy. Let's say that the car you purchase is tied to your job. The current job you have allows you to drive a Neon. Another job offer has come up and you'll get to drive a Bentley. However, you'll have to work at the other job for 6 months before you qualify and of course you'll lose the Neon in the meantime. In order to take the new job, you'll need a car, but you're unable to buy a Neon because they're not sold individually in your state. So now you'll have to buy the BMW-5 series in the interim, but it costs 10% more because you no longer receive a pre-tax medical benefit from participating in an employer-sponsored plan.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but you've taken my price analogy and perverted it to mean something different. My point is that if offered a choice between an Aston Martin or a BMW/Neon with $ left in your pocket, not everybody would choose an Aston Martin. And some might ask why there isn't a General Motors option too. The current situation is that the market offers you a "car" at an expensive price which is justified on the grounds that the "car" is such high quality; but in the absence of open efforts to quantify this,for all you know you may be buying a fine Soviet Volga motor vehicle whose manufacturer insists it is the best vehicle in the world.
>>>
>>>The solution you seem to advocate is to have the government take over or drive out of business all car companies and provide a one-size-fits-all Volga for everyone. I fail to see the benefit.
>>>
>>>>I don't believe you are- IME US healthcare quality is very high based on my visits to hospitals all over the country- but there is nothing wrong with assessing these things and watching where the $ goes. IMHO hospitals would like this too- many of them feel pressured and run ragged just staying afloat while the public perceives that they are creaming it.
>>>
>>>We agree here, and for what it's worth, I believe we know that a great deal of the cost accumulation comes from fraud, defensive medicine and new technology.
>>>Since :
>>>- the current proposals seek to expand the role of Medicare, the single greatest cause of fraud in the current system
>>>- not one of the current proposals seeks to address legal reform
>>>- the free market is the greatest facilitator of cost reduction for new technology and all of the current proposals seek to further restrict the market
>>>How am I supposed to take them seriously?
>>
>>Good point about tort reform. I would be fine with that because I think it would help rein in our (ridiculous) health care costs. That is one of the main objectives of the health care reform proposal, along with covering the 46 million uninsured.
>
>I have a question? What about the 15 million who choose not to be insured? Many are young and healthy and feel their money is better spent elsewhere. What about the millions who carry only catastrophic care for the same reason? Why should they be forced to subsidize the old and/or unhealthy?
>Why should Kevin or Tamar be forced to contribute to the health care of smokers like John and myself?
>Why should Marcia be forced to contribute to the health care of a drinker like you and myself?
>Why should I be forced to contribute to the health care of an idiot environmentalist who gets frostbite while trying to cross the arctic to "prove" global warming?
>Why should Tracy be forced to contribute to the health care of a Blue Devil? ;)

If I fiind out that is happening, I'll write a letter to my congress person that will be much more derogatory than Marcia's!!! And I will copy Obama for good measure!!! (My best friend is a blue devil fan believe it or not) :o)