The Worst Case Scenario For Healthcare Reform?

[ihavenobias]

Note: I currently don't have health insurance (BTW, I have sleep apnea for which I had surgery a couple of years ago) and as I discussed recently on TYT, my Girlfriend was just denied for a pre-existing condition. She's a 29 year old non-smoker who's not overweight, but she has a common digestive problem that affects 10-15% of Americans. There are no medications she can take or surgeries to have and all the necessary tests have already been done (it's non-fatal), so I can't imagine what expense BlueCross BlueShield of IL was worried about.

I've been arguing for some time that the worst case scenario is to pass a half-assed bill/corporate giveaway and call it reform to placate the masses and score political points in the short run. If this bill passes, the right will STILL pretend it's a Big Government, Socialist, Radical Liberal/Progressive plan when http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_oVK7iXkgo|that couldn't be further from the truth>.

The R's are fighting against this now for all the wrong reasons, but it's a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWcCfmXqRzA#t=5m43s|political wet dream> for them if it passes because of the mandate, lack of competition and strengthening of the current system. Even the subsidies that some are cheering about will provide amazing political fodder for Republicans to rile up their base (and even many moderates/independents), not to mention the fact that they'll be easy 'cut' targets when the R's return to power at some point. When the "reform" inevitably fails to reduce costs long term, the average American will be rightfully disgusted. The right will pounce (followed by the MSM as always) and blame a failure of liberalism and government intervention (directly and indirectly). If recent history is any indication, existing http://rawstory.com/2010/01/lieberman-democrats-move-center/|Dems will feel compelled to move further right> to stay in office, and progressives and progressive solutions will be even further marginalized.

That means our goal of changing the underlying problems with our healthcare system will be even further away than it is now because while the public pressure you expect would probably come, it would likely be directed at decreasing the role of government, thus ultimately strengthening insurance companies by removing the only check we have against corporate power. Best case is it would return us to what we have now for another 2 decades, and when reform is tried in the future, everyone will point to the failure of Government and Progressive ideas. This is why I reject the argument that passing the bill now provides a base to improve upon. The base sucks, meaning it will only decrease the political will to do actual improvements in the future, because again, even moderates will start to believe inevitable arguments that government/liberal intervention only made things worse. Finally, anyone pointing to Social Security and Medicare as a case for incrementalism ignores the enormous difference in the political climate, media and level of special interest influence then Vs. today.

PS---Out of 100: "...The United States is 23 points behind five leading economic competitors: Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. The five nations cover all their citizens, and though their systems differ, in each country the government plays a much larger role than in the U.S..." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29641091/|The Business Roundtable Report On Healthcare>, 2009 (Represents Top CEOs).

It's not about "purity" or "ideology", it's about what's been proven to work in numerous other countries (and which could easily work here with adjustments), despite what some of our http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtUYFROnzrg|Democratic leaders claim>.