H.R. 3950 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[Gawain 0]

Download all 2000 pages here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/19/comment-box-send-findings-health-care-reform/ To my knowledge, this is not posted on thomas.gov.

This bill is in the form of an amendment if I'm reading the first page correctly.

My initial feedback: You are required to buy insurance. This is wrong. The first time that we are forced to buy something. I'm pretty sure that's not in the Constitution. Don't use the auto-insurance as an argument. We aren't required to own cars, or even drive cars. This is the federal government's hands all over your body.

---

Sec. 1501 REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE. (Page 320)

Quote

21 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:

(1) IN GENERAL.—The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section
(in this sub section referred to as the ‘‘requirement’’) is commercial and economic in nature,
and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2).

(2) EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE.—The effects described in this paragraph are the following:

(A) The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about
how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.
(B) Health insurance and health care services are a significant part of the national economy. National health spending is
projected to increase from $2,500,000,000,000, or 17.6 percent of the economy, in 2009 to$4,700,000,000,000 in 2019.
Private health insurance spending is projected to be $854,000,000,000 in 2009, and pays for medical supplies, drugs, and
equipment that are shipped in interstate commerce. Since most health insurance is sold by national or regional health
insurance companies, health insurance is sold in interstate commerce and claims payments flow through interstate commerce.
(C) The requirement, together with the other provisions of this Act, will add millions of
new consumers to the health insurance market, increasing the supply of, and demand for,
health care services. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the requirement will in
crease the number and share of Americans who are insured.
(D) The requirement achieves near-universal coverage by building upon and strength
ening the private employer-based health insurance system, which covers 176,000,000 Ameri
cans nationwide. In Massachusetts, a similar requirement has strengthened private employer
based coverage: despite the economic downturn, the number of workers offered employer-based
coverage has actually increased.
(E) Half of all personal bankruptcies are caused in part by medical expenses. By signifi
cantly increasing health insurance coverage, the requirement, together with the other provisions
of this Act, will improve financial security for families.
(F) Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et 323
seq.), the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), and this Act, the Federal Govern
ment has a significant role in regulating health insurance which is in interstate commerce.
(G) Under sections 2704 and 2705 of the Public Health Service Act (as added by section
1201 of this Act), if there were no requirement, many individuals would wait to purchase health
insurance until they needed care. By significantly increasing health insurance coverage, the
requirement, together with the other provisions of this Act, will minimize this adverse selection
and broaden the health insurance risk pool to include healthy individuals, which will lower
health insurance premiums. The requirement is essential to creating effective health insurance
markets in which improved health insurance products that are guaranteed issue and do not
exclude coverage of pre-existing conditions can be sold.
(H) Administrative costs for private health insurance, which were $90,000,000,000 in
2006, are 26 to 30 percent of premiums in the current individual and small group markets. By
significantly increasing health insurance coverage and the size of purchasing pools, which
will increase economies of scale, the requirement, together with the other provisions of this
Act, will significantly reduce administrative costs and lower health insurance premiums.
The requirement is essential to creating effective health insurance markets that do not re
quire underwriting and eliminate its associated administrative costs.
(3) SUPREME COURT RULING.—In United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association
(322 U.S. 533 (1944)), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that insurance is interstate com
merce subject to Federal regulation.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Lucky... 0]

You're requitred to pay taxes, that's Constitutional. This is basically a tax and in fact, if you don't buy ins the IRS will assess the tax. Sorrry, nice try, if ya don't like it - leave. Isn't that the rhetoric I've been hearing for 8 years?

[kallend 2,230]

Like some cheese with that?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

You're requitred to pay taxes, that's Constitutional. This is basically a tax and in fact, if you don't buy ins the IRS will assess the tax. Sorrry, nice try, if ya don't like it - leave. Isn't that the rhetoric I've been hearing for 8 years?

and did it ever do anything other than make you think the person that used it on you was ignorant and had no reasonable facts to back up their argument?

--
Rob

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

You're requitred to pay taxes, that's Constitutional. This is basically a tax and in fact, if you don't buy ins the IRS will assess the tax. Sorrry, nice try, if ya don't like it - leave. Isn't that the rhetoric I've been hearing for 8 years?

nothing like a little taxation without representation . . . but after all socialism doesn't really have that on their agenda, that whole "representation" bit now do they?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

You're requitred to pay taxes, that's Constitutional. This is basically a tax and in fact, if you don't buy ins the IRS will assess the tax. Sorrry, nice try, if ya don't like it - leave. Isn't that the rhetoric I've been hearing for 8 years?

nothing like a little taxation without representation . . . but after all socialism doesn't really have that on their agenda, that whole "representation" bit now do they?

The people who drafted this and those who will vote on it are elected representatives of the people. Taxation without representation is not an issue here.

[quade 4]

Quote

. . . nothing like a little taxation without representation . . .

They're doing away with Congress? I did not know that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You're requitred to pay taxes, that's Constitutional. This is basically a tax and in fact, if you don't buy ins the IRS will assess the tax. Sorrry, nice try, if ya don't like it - leave. Isn't that the rhetoric I've been hearing for 8 years?

nothing like a little taxation without representation . . . but after all socialism doesn't really have that on their agenda, that whole "representation" bit now do they?

I don't know, I'm betting you know the Constitution or its equivalent of Socialist countries as well as I. Of course you will profess to be an expert.

As for representation, how is a tax for people not buying insurance w/o representation? If they enact controls and make it reasonable then it's fair. Otherwise, how is it fair if you don't buy it, have an accident and are wards of the state? Talk about the rest of society not being represented, having to care for a citizen who refused to pay a reasonable premium.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're requitred to pay taxes, that's Constitutional. This is basically a tax and in fact, if you don't buy ins the IRS will assess the tax. Sorrry, nice try, if ya don't like it - leave. Isn't that the rhetoric I've been hearing for 8 years?

nothing like a little taxation without representation . . . but after all socialism doesn't really have that on their agenda, that whole "representation" bit now do they?

The people who drafted this and those who will vote on it are elected representatives of the people. Taxation without representation is not an issue here.

It's their catch phrase. Every time they don't like what they see, they use it not knowing what it means.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

You're requitred to pay taxes, that's Constitutional. This is basically a tax and in fact, if you don't buy ins the IRS will assess the tax. Sorrry, nice try, if ya don't like it - leave. Isn't that the rhetoric I've been hearing for 8 years?

you are not required to pay taxes for simply existing.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

The people who drafted this and those who will vote on it are elected representatives of the people. Taxation without representation is not an issue here.

And how many of those pages were in fact drafted by industry lobbyists?

And we already know how many reps will actually read the whole thing before voting on it: 0

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

You're requitred to pay taxes, that's Constitutional. This is basically a tax and in fact, if you don't buy ins the IRS will assess the tax.

That's a fair argument. I am curious to see how/if this affects President Obama's promise not to raise taxes on incomes less than $200K/$250K. If the employee has a FSP/Cafeteria plan, their taxes will indeed go up.

From the little I've read so far, little here seems to actually look at reducing costs, which was what the whole argument about insurance reform was supposedly about once upon a time.

This Table of the revenue provisions seems to drive up a lot of costs (italics my comments):

Quote

TITLE IX—REVENUE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A—Revenue Offset Provisions
Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage. --increase costs
Sec. 9002. Inclusion of cost of employer-sponsored health coverage on W–2.
Sec. 9003. Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.
Sec. 9004. Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses.
Sec. 9005. Limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans. --tax increase see quote below
Sec. 9006. Expansion of information reporting requirements.
Sec. 9007. Additional requirements for charitable hospitals.
Sec. 9008. Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers. --Prescription drug costs go up
Sec. 9009. Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers.--Costs go up faster
Sec. 9010. Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers.--My favorite...the very companies we want to reduce costs on, but increase their taxes too? Brilliant!!!
Sec. 9011. Study and report of effect on veterans health care.
Sec. 9012. Elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy.And the only government program to actually cost less than projected, will disappear.
Sec. 9013. Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses.
Sec. 9014. Limitation on excessive remuneration paid by certain health insurance providers.
Sec. 9015. Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers.More taxes!!
Sec. 9016. Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations.
Sec. 9017. Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures....and more taxes!!

Going back to Section 9005, that one is going to hurt a fair number of folks:

Quote

9 ‘‘(i) LIMITATION ON HEALTH FLEXIBLE SPENDING 10 ARRANGEMENTS.
—For purposes of this section, if a benefit is provided under a cafeteria plan through employer contributions to a health flexible spending arrangement, such benefit shall not be treated as a qualified benefit unless the cafeteria plan provides that an employee may not elect for any taxable year to have salary reduction contributions in excess of $2,500 made to such arrangement.’’.

Now, I may not be reading this correctly, but here's my dumb-speak on this:
Employer contributes to Jack's health plan, $5,000/year. Jack's health plan costs $7,000/year. Jack pays the balance of the premium. He does so through pre-tax payroll deductions. Jack as a wife and one child. Jack also takes pre-tax payroll deductions into an FSP of $500/month ($6,000/year). Jack uses the FSP to pay for deductibles, co-pays, eye-glasses, whatever is covered, or not by the health plan. Jack's salary is $72,000/year gross. With his FSP and health care reductions done pre-tax, his taxable income is $66,000.

These new rules would require Jack to reduce his FSP withholding, essentially raising his taxes. Under the current code, his bracket at $66K/year is 15%. He loses $3500 for his FSP, and now his salary is $69,500, which ups his bracket to 25%.

But, it gets worse than that, because when the tax cuts expire, his bracket will have already increased to 27% (starting at a paltry $47K). Of course, we'll see how that pans out when President Obama lays out his tax plan, and we'll see if he sticks to that campaign promise.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You're requitred to pay taxes, that's Constitutional. This is basically a tax and in fact, if you don't buy ins the IRS will assess the tax. Sorrry, nice try, if ya don't like it - leave. Isn't that the rhetoric I've been hearing for 8 years?

you are not required to pay taxes for simply existing.

That's right, which is why there are provisions for the indigent in there. BTW, I read it was like $95 the first year.

[Lucky... 0]

Since I'm an American I don't have HC, so I'm not familiar with what a cafeteria plan is. I believe it's where the insured gets to shop around for a doc? Yes/no? This sounds fairly negligible at teh end as far as any increase or loss of deduction leading to a small % tax increase, so is it really a substantial tax increase? Also, Obama is trying to cut taxes slightly for low incomers; < 50k etc. So whatever increase might be seen should be offset by that. Taxes and promises realy aren't an exact science, if the benefit to the people increase drastically and taxes increase slightly then that is an overall gain. We'll have to see how it pans out, but in general, it will be a gain for most < 200k/yr, certainly < 50k/yr.

Taxes increased for the MC very slightly under Clinton and the net result was massive gain for most, so I'm not gonna be semantic and split hairs if my taxes increase 3% as long as I see benefit, vs my taxes falling 5% under Bush (or whatever it was) and seeing things go to fuck. These things really aren't an exact science but more of an overall, net gain/loss. I see it being hard to realize a net loss under Obama, things have recovered amazingly fast and promise is > it would be under any other 2008 pres candidate I'm sure.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

You're requitred to pay taxes, that's Constitutional. This is basically a tax and in fact, if you don't buy ins the IRS will assess the tax.

That's a fair argument. I am curious to see how/if this affects President Obama's promise not to raise taxes on incomes less than $200K/$250K. If the employee has a FSP/Cafeteria plan, their taxes will indeed go up.

From the little I've read so far, little here seems to actually look at reducing costs, which was what the whole argument about insurance reform was supposedly about once upon a time.

This Table of the revenue provisions seems to drive up a lot of costs (italics my comments):

Quote

TITLE IX—REVENUE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A—Revenue Offset Provisions
Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage. --increase costs
Sec. 9002. Inclusion of cost of employer-sponsored health coverage on W–2.
Sec. 9003. Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.
Sec. 9004. Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses.
Sec. 9005. Limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans. --tax increase see quote below
Sec. 9006. Expansion of information reporting requirements.
Sec. 9007. Additional requirements for charitable hospitals.
Sec. 9008. Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers. --Prescription drug costs go up
Sec. 9009. Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers.--Costs go up faster
Sec. 9010. Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers.--My favorite...the very companies we want to reduce costs on, but increase their taxes too? Brilliant!!!
Sec. 9011. Study and report of effect on veterans health care.
Sec. 9012. Elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy.And the only government program to actually cost less than projected, will disappear.
Sec. 9013. Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses.
Sec. 9014. Limitation on excessive remuneration paid by certain health insurance providers.
Sec. 9015. Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers.More taxes!!
Sec. 9016. Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations.
Sec. 9017. Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures....and more taxes!!

Going back to Section 9005, that one is going to hurt a fair number of folks:

Quote

9 ‘‘(i) LIMITATION ON HEALTH FLEXIBLE SPENDING 10 ARRANGEMENTS.
—For purposes of this section, if a benefit is provided under a cafeteria plan through employer contributions to a health flexible spending arrangement, such benefit shall not be treated as a qualified benefit unless the cafeteria plan provides that an employee may not elect for any taxable year to have salary reduction contributions in excess of $2,500 made to such arrangement.’’.

Now, I may not be reading this correctly, but here's my dumb-speak on this:
Employer contributes to Jack's health plan, $5,000/year. Jack's health plan costs $7,000/year. Jack pays the balance of the premium. He does so through pre-tax payroll deductions. Jack as a wife and one child. Jack also takes pre-tax payroll deductions into an FSP of $500/month ($6,000/year). Jack uses the FSP to pay for deductibles, co-pays, eye-glasses, whatever is covered, or not by the health plan. Jack's salary is $72,000/year gross. With his FSP and health care reductions done pre-tax, his taxable income is $66,000.

These new rules would require Jack to reduce his FSP withholding, essentially raising his taxes. Under the current code, his bracket at $66K/year is 15%. He loses $3500 for his FSP, and now his salary is $69,500, which ups his bracket to 25%.

But, it gets worse than that, because when the tax cuts expire, his bracket will have already increased to 27% (starting at a paltry $47K). Of course, we'll see how that pans out when President Obama lays out his tax plan, and we'll see if he sticks to that campaign promise.

Did you get a chance to read this section:

Quote

Sec. 9002. Inclusion of cost of employer-sponsored health coverage on W–2.

Does this entail simply listing the cost of the employer's cost of the coverage, or does it seek to include the employer-paid portion of the coverage as income?

I tried scrolling through the 2000+ pages to find it, but wasn't able to. Did I miss something, or are the page numbers for each section/sub-section not listed?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Like some cheese with that?

Nothing relevant to say?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Quote

You're requitred to pay taxes, that's Constitutional. This is basically a tax and in fact, if you don't buy ins the IRS will assess the tax. Sorrry, nice try, if ya don't like it - leave. Isn't that the rhetoric I've been hearing for 8 years?

you are not required to pay taxes for simply existing.

There's sales tax on food in a lot of states. How long can YOU can exist without eating?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Quote

Like some cheese with that?

Nothing relevant to say?

Waiting for a non whiny post to respond to.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like some cheese with that?

Nothing relevant to say?

Waiting for a non whiny post to respond to.

If these guy's bite was equal to their bark we would have millions living in Montana as Freemen. We know it's all whine and cheese. They enjoy the spoils of living in society, just hate to pay for it.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Waiting for a non whiny post to respond to.

There was plenty of topic you could have responded to... The first whinny post I saw was yours.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

They enjoy the spoils of living in society, just hate to pay for it.

Irony score off the freakin chart!!!

That sounds like you... You want everything such as free to you HC, but don't want to work or pay for it... You want me to pay for your HC.

Imagine how great the US would be if people were willing to work for the things they want instead of expecting others just to give it to them!

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SwampGod 0]

Just a quick background on me to frame my comment.

I believe in health care reform. I believe in universal care. I wish everyone could go to the doctor for free. Basically, this is not a blind attack on a liberal policy for the sake of being argumentative.

I think there are many paths to this destination. I am concerned with walking the path that requires people to pay for insurance. This path sounds like it's littered with alligators and ex-girlfriends... but maybe I'm missing something.

1) What I learned in basic economic theory is that when demand for a product goes up, price goes up as well. If we require everyone to pay for insurance, doesn't this give all the leverage to the insurance companies? Where is their incentive to keep prices down?

2) Can we find another example of forced purchases that aren't car insurance or food? I have problems with both... As mentioned, we aren't born with cars, so liability insurance fails. Not all states charge a tax on non-prepared food, and you can grow your own if you like, so that doesn't seem as applicable... If a forced purchase from an insurance company is the best way, then let's do it... I just wish I could see another place where this exists and has proven successful.

3) Is mandatory insurance truly better than a more robust public option? As in, a government-run program that exists side by side with private ones. We've had such a system in education for years... Public universities have existed side-by-side with private, and many site our country as the world's best in secondary education.

Thanks all!

-eli

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Since I'm an American I don't have HC, so I'm not familiar with what a cafeteria plan is. I believe it's where the insured gets to shop around for a doc? Yes/no? This sounds fairly negligible at teh end as far as any increase or loss of deduction leading to a small % tax increase, so is it really a substantial tax increase? Also, Obama is trying to cut taxes slightly for low incomers; might be seen should be offset by that. Taxes and promises realy aren't an exact science, if the benefit to the people increase drastically and taxes increase slightly then that is an overall gain. We'll have to see how it pans out, but in general, it will be a gain for most
Taxes increased for the MC very slightly under Clinton and the net result was massive gain for most, so I'm not gonna be semantic and split hairs if my taxes increase 3% as long as I see benefit, vs my taxes falling 5% under Bush (or whatever it was) and seeing things go to fuck. These things really aren't an exact science but more of an overall, net gain/loss. I see it being hard to realize a net loss under Obama, things have recovered amazingly fast and promise is > it would be under any other 2008 pres candidate I'm sure.

Dude, if you don't know what it is...

A cafeteria plan is a "Flexible Spending Plan". Dollars placed into this plan can be deducted from pay, pre-tax. This allows you to pay for covered expenses without being taxed on the income to pay for it. Many people use this to pay for things like child care, deductibles, etc. It's significant, and my example is on-target, if not a bulls-eye. The middle class doesn't just exist under $50K/year. Take a look around. For the average income in the United States to be hovering over $40K/year...figure it out.

Tax increases under Clinton added two more brackets to the upper income (36%, and 39.6%) earners. This was off-set by a cut in the capital gains tax (and it's what was also used in Congress to balance the budget).

President Obama's tax promises have said nothing, nothing, of a tax cut to low earners. You know why? Because low earners end up not paying tax.

The example I proposed shows a net loss to "Jack" and his family. Justify that.

We can use you as an example if you want. What's your salary? What, if any benefits do you get from your employer? Throw some bottom line dollars out there, instead of hypothetical "gain for most" because "Obama is trying to cut taxes"...rubbish.

You cannont implement a Trillion dollar program for nothing. The offsets that Sen. Reid put in this bill will not pay for it. You can't possibly believe this will cost as promised?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Ron 10]

Good points.

But a question about this one:

Quote

As in, a government-run program that exists side by side with private ones. We've had such a system in education for years... Public universities have existed side-by-side with private, and many site our country as the world's best in secondary education.

When you compare private schools to public schools... Which do you think is better?

Do you think that public Elementary and High schools are doing a good job?

Also, look at the balance sheets of other US Govt social programs... Are Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid running well?

Look at Medical programs in other Country's... Are they running well?

It is foolish to think that the solution is to follow a path that has already been proven not to work time after time.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SwampGod 0]

Quote

When you compare private schools to public schools... Which do you think is better?

I went to a private school. My younger brother went public. My networking was amazing and has served me in later life. He got the better "education." My classes were more liberal artsy, and he came out with real-life business skills, which immediately were used in his first job.

I think choice is important.

Quote

Also to make the comparison even more realistic, don't use Universities, use Elementary and High schools. Do you think that public Elementary and High schools are doing a good job?

Curious as to why K-12 is a better example? I use college, as I didn't have a private school to choose from K-12. I prefer the system where there is an option, and think it makes a better example.

Either way, I agree there are problems in our public school systems, to be sure... which is why I'm glad there are options to go private in some communities, as well. That being said, the public school system I went to was actually really good.

I'm happy to use another example if schools aren't a good one. Just trying to wrap my brain around this whole thing, and I've heard people say, "If we let the government have a program they'll take over everything..." Just haven't seen that in education.

Quote

Also, look at the balance sheets of other US Govt social programs... Are Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid running well?

You mean this year, or when we actually look forward toward the budget.... problems? Hehehe, i agree that the government is not the only solution. My point was that I am uncomfortable with the government telling me to purchase insurance and I'd be fine with a gov't option side by side with other options.

Quote

Look at Medical programs in other Country's... Are they running well?

GREAT QUESTION!!! I think the answer is mixed. Both sides give us anecdotal answers that sound fishy. Can anyone from any other country with more government supported health care weigh in?

Quote

It is foolish to think that the solution is to follow a path that has already been proven not to work time after time.

I agree, but I guess this could refer to a lot of things. Maybe rather than debating public versus private this should be a state versus federal discussion. Maybe there should be no gov't insurance option, but more gov't community health centers that concentrate on preventative health. Maybe.... maybe the world is a big complicated place, and we'd better put all of our smart heads together cause this one is gonna be a doooooozy!

We're looking for a path, but it's likely a combination of paths... some aspects of free market economics with a pinch of socialist theory. Six parts libertarian freedom with a cup of diced utilitarianism.

All I want to find is the path lined with free beer and backrubs.

-eli