Comparison of House & Senate Health Bills

[Dan40]

The House bill is a stinkin pile of crap, as is the Senate bill. Neither will reduce costs of medical care and neither will reduce the deficit. Anyone thinking otherwise is blind to Gov't programs over the last 50 plus years. They don't work as promised, they exceed projected costs by multiples, and they are next to impossible to remove or fix.


Covering those without insurance as referenced above,
Where does it say in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that there is a right to insurance coverage?

Helping those that need help, TEMPORARILY, is OK. Gov't. nannyism from the cradle to the grave is just blatantly stupid. And temporary help should be the bailiwick of churches and charities with minimum Gov't. support.

The Republican idea of tort reform does more to address the cost problem than all 4000 pages House and Senate doublespeak. HOWEVER, actually DOING tort reform would likely involve about 50 years of litigation by the trail lawyers fighting to keep the gravy train on track.

Another idea seemingly with merit is open competition of insurance companies across state lines. Does it have merit? Not sure. Am sure that STATES RIGHTS allow for the regulation of insurance within their state. And regulate they do, totally and completely. Could be another 50 years of court battles between the Feds. and the States on that issue.

This whole issue was supposed to be about health CARE, not insurance coverage.

The insurance issue seems simple. Those too poor to buy insurance get covered by an expanded Medicaid. Those that can afford to buy insurance and don't should be singularly responsible for the consequences of their own decisions..
But there is no possible tongue twisting lie that could convince anyone that an expanded Medicaid would save money and reduce the deficit.