THE LATEST
« »

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Senate Health Care Compromise?

I've always defined "compromise" as "an agreement designed to make all parties equally unhappy." This doesn't seem to qualify.

Reuters:

U.S. senators considering sweeping changes to the U.S. healthcare system on Wednesday floated a proposal they say could bridge the divide over the government's role in providing affordable medical insurance to millions of uninsured Americans.

The measure offered by Democratic Senator Kent Conrad would create nonprofit cooperatives, owned and operated by their members, to compete with private insurers to provide healthcare to individuals and small businesses.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who has a lead role in writing healthcare reform legislation, said it could allay Republican concerns about expanding the role of government in healthcare while addressing Democratic demands for a plan that would inject more competition into the insurance market.

"It's a live option at the moment," Baucus told reporters following a meeting with committee members to discuss the idea. He said the proposal was discussed with President Barack Obama at a White House meeting earlier in the day.


First off, screw what Baucus thinks. He's been against a public option -- and therefore, real reform -- from day one. If he thinks this is a good idea, then that's good evidence that it's not.

Second, what's to stop people from doing this now? What problem -- other than a disagreement among senators -- would this even solve?

Third -- yes, there's a third -- how would this provide universal coverage?

"A public plan option that competes with private insurance and follows the same rules as private insurance is the only real way to give every American access to good, affordable health insurance," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller.

Like I said, I don't see everyone being equally unhappy with this "compromise."

Search Archive:

Custom Search