Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
What seems to be missing from this thread is the discussion of the balance between a system that is less costly for those who can presently access it v. a system that is open to all that need it. Everything government costs money. The question is whether it is appropriate, and whether the cost meets the objective. I think everyone here feels that adequate health care is critical, and everyone should have access to it. As a number of you have pointed out, it is unclear whether it will cost much more than the legislation predicts. Given the incredible need, we should at least see whether or not it is cost prohibitive. The data from California is encouraging, if not complete. Medicare Part C was confusing as hell at first, and may still be so, but it is working, and I doubt there are many seniors who wish it was never created.
I have knowledgeable friends and colleagues (with deep health care industry experience) who are on both sides of Obamacare. A few think it is going to be wonderful, and a few think it will be a total disaster. The great majority in the middle seem to think it is a mess simply by virtue of its sheer size and complexity, and recognize that as presently designed it simply will not work. As Obamacare is implemented it will have to be tweaked in major and minor ways -- some of which we can anticipate now, and some of which we haven't even discovered yet. I'm in that middle group. We would be looking at big bumps in the road and hiccups anyway, with any policy change this massive, but in this case the outrageous way the legislation was written and enacted ensures even more of that. (That last sentence is my own opinion.)