Thursday, November 12, 2009

Any bill is better than no health care bill

There are some on the left who honestly believe that a "bad" health care bill is worse than no bill this election cycle. They think that passing a bill that gives more customers to health insurance companies without either a public option or other mechanism to make them extremely less profitable is bad. Now with the Stupak amendment in play, they think passing a bill that limits womens' choice on abortion is bad and worse than current law.

In fact, whatever is passed will be flawed and have to be revisited. This will be due to unintended consequences. That happens with every major legislation. None of us ever could know really what is going to happen. So we are left to try to chart the general direction.

Certainly adding 36 million people into the health care system is better than leaving them out.
Certainly guaranteeing coverage for sick people and giving Americans a better package that will reduce the likelihood of bankrupcy is better than not trying.

I am like most informed citizens, in that I don't agree with all of the proposal. I would draft a completely one. I wouldn't force anyone to buy insurance. I would make the deal for them so good that no reasonable person wouldn't. Or alternatively, I would sign people up for a basic plan automatically, a public option type plan (funded by the govt. but not run by the govt.), and then they could choose another plan later.

It is easier to fix something rather than starting over.
I will grant that there are times when the reform is going in the completely wrong direction that it is better to scuttle that. Thinking about the current system for example with the tax benefits for employer based care and how it is so hard to get rid of it.

In the end,
Democrats should just pass a bill and fix it later if need be.

No comments: