As far as reading the bill, no I haven’t read this 1,990 page bill that was only released a few days ago, and I have no intention of reading it. I don’t think that’s required to make someone’s opinion valid. I have a broader context of the events, a knowledge of the key issues, and I think that’s enough. You even apparently agree with me on all key issues, yet as far as I can tell, you make it seem as if it’s impossible to form an opinion.

As far as I can tell, you, at least not on this blog, are not a reporter. You are using other news reports as your sources. You are a commentator, yet for some reason you seem afraid to reach a final conclusion on the bill and comment only on the coverage of it. Well, way to contribute to the clutter.

Also, I’m not trying to take away from objective reporting, but it seems as if there are no conclusions to be drawn. I say there absolutely are.

1. I wish more people like you were being heard when the ‘death panel’ discussion was going on. You experienced it – sadly – up close and personal. As you discovered a DNR is a very important concept and I’m so pleased that you and your father were able to deal with this when your dad was in a position to let his feelings be known and to have you a part of it so you could honor those wishes. It sounds like your father could not have picked a better person to execute his wishes. The language that was in question – and which actually ended up in the House bill after all the nonsense – would allow a Medicare participant to have a discussion with their physician- at the government’s expense- so that the person can get information and think through, based on information and knowledge, how they want their end of life care to be handled. How this could ever be interpreted as a bad thing has always been beyond me. It took a remarkably cynical interpretation to get the result that the government wants to kill old people -despite the fact that average age in the Senate is about 150.

2. You’re right. The trouble is politics. If it doesn’t get passed before we get into the 2010 election cycle when everything stops for elections, it will never get done. Since we know how unbelievably hard it is to get legislation on health care reform, better to get it through, even with mistakes as we can always correct those mistakes in the years ahead. People forget that many adjustments were made to Social Security and Medicare after they were passed into law. Just like those pieces of landmark legislation, mistakes will be made here, unintended consequences will result and ideas that just didn’t come up will as time goes by. But to begin the process, we must get legislation to focus it.

I guess we need to go further because objective reporting of what is actually being proposed is difficult to do if (a) you chose to tell us all about it and you haven’t even read it and (b) because you are offering your opinion which you will forgive us if we accept it as your opinion – which is what it is – and not a statement of facts. Maybe you would like to give us your opinions of everything so we could all just stop reading and following events by just listening to what you think and accepting that as fact.

YOu are certainly entitled to your opinion and many of us would no doubt agree with it, but opinions and information are just not the same thing.

I’ve heard so many things about these bills, but the basic thing is that they’re going to force people to buy health insurance and it’s not going to save them any money. So, there, there’s the bottom line. Why do we need to go further. It’s like being told someone’s going to punch you in the face, and asking, “Well, how hard? Is he wearing rings? Is he tired, because that could affect it too?”

I don’t think I’ve complicated the issue, or added any extraneous detail. I’ve tried to boil it down to its most salient points, something which you try to do, but then seem to keep equivocating over the conclusion. If you disagree with each one of these major points, is the conclusion not clear? It really is that simple.

Also, I don’t know what you mean by the more robust version “considered” by the House, because as I mentioned the “robust version” of the public option (aka Medicare +5%) is not in the House bill. If you mean they thought about it, then decided something else, sure, they considered it. …They didn’t actually do anything with it, but I guess they talked about it.

Also, I wasn’t trying to casually link the size of the public option with its prices being tied to Medicare. Those are simply two separate things to be upset about.

When this debate first came up it seemed after watching the Right and Left biased news channels that if I was for it I was a Socialist / Communist, against it I was a Racist. I am neither but there seemed no middle ground.

I looked at some of the language of the so-called “Death Panels” and the process seemed to replicate what I had gone through with my 92-year-old father. Meeting with a staff Social Worker at his facility, then meeting with an Attorney to draw up a Durable Power of Attorney, a Living Will, DNR (Do not Resuscitate) orders. I basically set up with his blessing in a lucid period, instructions that his life would be extended as long as his quality of life would not be damaged. One occasion I approved a life extending procedure, on the final one I did not. I believe I spared him a lot of pain and suffering in his final days by having gone through this process. If my reading of the “Death Panel” issue is correct then people have no idea of amount of pain they are playing with.

To my additional factor, I would add the speed of passage, without as you identified a compelling reason.

“To perfect things, speed is a unifying force. To imperfect things, speed is a destructive force.”
Michael Schumacher – 7 times World Champion Formula 1 driver.

He may have referring to setting up a F1 racing car, but this quote reads more like a universal truth. In addition, highlights the point I am trying to make.

Thank you for trying to add clarity to an issue nobody with a vested interest seems to want. Especially the press, controversial drama sells, truth does not, or to me that is the way it seems.

By the way, your point that we are forcing people in the market place (something else I don’t favor) while introducing a miniscule public option again, misses the point.

The reason the public option is ‘miniscule’ is because the government is protecting existing health insurance policies, primarily provided to employees via employer plans. If you want to be angry, be angry that participants in these plans are not being given the option of electing to leave these plans and choosing the public option.

The reason that the number of people who can participate in the public option is so small is due to the protection of these corporate policies. People who receive coverage through Medicare and Medicaid were never intended to go into the public option as it would offer (a) nothing better than what Medicare recipients receive and (b) would be too expensive for those who get care through Medicaid. Also keep in mind that the House bill adds significantly to those who will qualify for Medicaid.
Thus, this is not about people who are going to be left out of coverage because they are being denied access to the public option. There will be some left out, to be sure, but this is the result of that layer of society that earns too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to pay for what the public option will end up costing.
Again, this is not a good thing and I don’t support anyone being left out. My point in this post was about making all this stuff understandable to people. You simply want to show us what you know and, in the process, confuse the reader even more. We will accept that you know a whole bunch. Now, if you want to be helpful, focus on getting the information across to Americans in an understandable way.

So, we’re forcing everybody into the market place (under the threat of criminal action), when we’re only introducing a miniscule public option that is not “robust,” meaning that the prices of the public option have NOT been tied to medicare.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/28/house-progressives-dial-b_n_337574.html

So, this new insurer is going to have to compete with Blue Cross Blue Shield which covers 68 million Americans.

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Blue-Cross-and-Blue-Shield-Association-Company-History.html

Ah, what a good deal. I’m sure the public option will be able to compete with that, and it simply won’t get crushed under the wheels of the other insurers, and all this won’t amount to an enormous giveaway to insurers that people can be sent to prison for up to 10 years for “evading” if they choose not to participate in. Yes, of course that won’t happen, because the insurer that Congress is proposing is “non-profit.” Yes, that will make everything alright, and their non-profitness will save the day.

What a joke.

Mr. Unger, the details of this might be confusing, but the greater picture, which from what I can remember from your article you choose not to elucidate, is clear: the individual mandate which is enforcible by massive fines and potential jail time will not work without a massive public option that is hopefully tied to Medicare. Anything else is a complete giveaway to insurers.