>>He already did that. It was quoted on the news the next day as well. The Republicans responded with: allowing insurance companies to cross state lines will make it more competitive and bring the costs down and make health insurance more affordable for all.
>>
>>Great. So the next slogan is "Competition doesn't mean dumping or bankrupting people who get sick." Another easy serve for the media.
>>
>>As for Medicare - he stated in his speech that he was not going to cut Medicare, but even his website had the plan listed as 600 billion in cuts.
>>
>>Which is the trouble with trying to be so specific when your opponent is using bumper-stickers. He needs to hit the grandma button: Medicare is going to cost more because we have made a commitment to look after our grandmas including the hundreds of thousands who join their hallowed ranks every year, but my reforms won't add one extra cent to that.
>>
>>To be fair, I think the majority of those against the healthcare bill are against the mandating of participation (in Obama's words: individual responsibility) and the spending. They don't believe it can be done without increasing the deficit and they think the deficit is so far beyond control that anything added to it will destroy this country.
>>
>>Medicare costs are going to spiral anyway as the population ages. Blocking reform won't change that, which is why the grandma button is such a good one.
>
>How are reforms going to help future participants in Medicare? Medicate already covers everyone over a specific age. They will not see greater benefits or more coverage, but rather a cut in their benefits.
>
>Medicaid covers fewer than it should. I could see an increase in costs there if the coverage was expanded to include those with slightly higher incomes. However, he is not planning that. He is planning a new system entirely that does not effect Medicaid.
>
>What you are basically stating (if I understand your point) is that if a new system is not put into place, then there will be no Medicare in the future. If that is the case, then fix the fraud, waste, and abuse of the current systems before launching into a new government system. What concerns people so much is our governments history of running systems into the ground. If the government could demonstrate some responsibility with the existing systems, then the public might be a whole lot more supportive. Maybe if there wasn't so much abuse of the current systems (and we're only talking healthcare systems not purchases like 500.00 toilet seats), then there would be more money to spend of covering more of the public.
>
>Personally, I'd feel a whole lot better about it all if they were to announce that the Swedes or the Dutch were going to come in and clean up the system and design the new healthcare system as well. THAT would be nice :o)

Agreed! The reason our health care is so much worse than the other developed nations, and so much more expensive, isn't because we're stupid. The forces against reform are just too rich and powerful. Almost every President since FDR has talked about health care reform, all without success other than LBJ. Now we have a President who has the cojones to take them on and they're squealing like pigs stuck under a gate. It's already looking like whatever he gets will be too watered down to really change things.