# Dancing on the grave of health care "reform" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 3, 2010, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487 "2010-02-03T04:17:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 34
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/661 "2010-03-03T16:25:08Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > There’s lots of experiments we really want to try out in the real world just to see what the heck happens. > Travelling to the far reaches of the universe to collect dark matter to test cosmology. > Putting sets of twins through a series of abuses to test nature vs nurture theory. > Dropping turkeys out of helicopters to test whether they could fly. > > Sometimes you just have to trust the “experts” instead of conducting all those really cool experiments just 'cause ya wanna. Yes, sometimes you do. And sometimes you don’t. The majority of Americans are, currently, satisfied with their health insurance; even with the antitrust exemption, the market is doing that well. There’s a plan afoot in Congress to introduce major changes, but most Americans don’t like it and want our legislators to start over working piece-by-piece on items that stand a better chance of garnering bipartisan support; there’s no enthusiasm for instituting “expert” recommendations RIGHT NOW OMG, but rather the opposite. I don’t want _ **them** _ to conduct their experiment just 'cause they wanna – and most Americans _ **likewise** _ don’t want the experiment currently proposed by the left to get conducted. Eliminating the antitrust exemption, though, _ **does** _ have bipartisan support; let’s conduct _ **that** _ experiment and give the free market a chance to earn the business of consenting adults first. If problems still remain and public support _ **then** _ arises for an “expert” solution, by all means call for some at that date. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/662 "2010-03-03T16:31:26Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > We could give saline drips to cancer patients. Sure, doctors say it won’t do anything, but why not see what happens? We could leave it up to individual cancer patients whether they want to follow the doctor’s recommendation or choose a saline drip; I know what I’d choose. > [@](#): > > We could require all sick people to take Chinese herbal tea. Sure, science has shown it doesn’t do anything to help, but why not see what happens? Likewise, I’m not trying to “require” anything of the sort; I’m all for the right of individual sick people to choose to take herbal tea, or not, as they please; their informed consent is what matters to me. “We could insist that hospitals must be spaced five miles apart,” you say, adding that “medical administrators say it wouldn’t help anything”. The whole point is that I _ **don’t** _ want to insist on anything of the sort; I want to leave it up to them. We’re on the same side with regard to not requiring sick people to take herbal tea. We’re on the same side with regard to not insisting on five-mile spacing. We’re on the same side as regards not switching to an all-saline-drip approach. Why aren’t we on the same side as regards leaving yet _ **other** _ decisions alone? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/663 "2010-03-03T16:48:35Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The majority of Americans are, currently, satisfied with their health insurance; even with the antitrust exemption, the market is doing that well. I do wonder what the satisfaction rate is on people who actually need it substantially. Sure, if you’re doing a few doctor visits a year, maybe you get prenatal care or routine drugs on your own time, and you’re satisfied with your insurance. But there are a lot of people who get screwed when they actually need the insurance the most - when it’s life or death. I’m sure everyone who ended up getting screwed were happy with their insurance up until that moment, but you are quite emphatically unhappy after that. I’m actually curious to know in the aggregate how many claims insurers screw people on. We have many many stories, but that doesn’t give us the statistical data. Anyone have any idea about the numbers regarding denied treatments? > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > We’re on the same side with regard to not requiring sick people to take herbal tea. We’re on the same side with regard to not insisting on five-mile spacing. We’re on the same side as regards not switching to an all-saline-drip approach. Why aren’t we on the same side as regards leaving yet _ **other** _ decisions alone? You’re the one making the claim without the weight of evidence - that if we just removed government involvement more, the free market would solve everything. This has not been demonstrated to work to my knowledge in any real world application in terms of the entirety of a country’s medical system. It is essentially dogma - you think the free market is the perfect solution to every problem. I’m a big believer in free markets and think they’re great at most of what they do - but on certain issues the incentives don’t line up well with good outcomes for everyone, and this is such a case. The comparative evidence we do have shows that pretty much everyone else does this better than us. You’re also arguing against an implicit forced takeover of health care, which is something that happens a lot in these debates. It’s essentially a straw man to act as if the current proposal is a single payer system. Most people will not be forced to make any changes, and if they’re happy with what they’ve got, stick with it. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/664 "2010-03-03T16:57:09Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I do wonder what the satisfaction rate is on people who actually need it substantially. Sure, if you’re doing a few doctor visits a year, maybe you get prenatal care or routine drugs on your own time, and you’re satisfied with your insurance. But there are a lot of people who get screwed when they actually need the insurance the most - when it’s life or death. I’m sure everyone who ended up getting screwed were happy with their insurance up until that moment, but you are quite emphatically unhappy after that. > > I’m actually curious to know in the aggregate how many claims insurers screw people on. We have many many stories, but that doesn’t give us the statistical data. Anyone have any idea about the numbers regarding denied treatments? According to the California Nurses Association: > [@](#): > > The CNA said Cigna rejected 32.7 percent, Health Net 30 percent, Kaiser Permanente 28.3 percent and Blue Cross 27.9 percent. [http://www.sacbee.com/2009/09/04/2159681/state-attorney-general-targets.html](http://www.sacbee.com/2009/09/04/2159681/state-attorney-general-targets.html) ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/665 "2010-03-03T16:59:37Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > We could leave it up to individual cancer patients whether they want to follow the doctor’s recommendation or choose a saline drip; I know what I’d choose. > > Likewise, I’m not trying to “require” anything of the sort; I’m all for the right of individual sick people to choose to take herbal tea, or not, as they please; their informed consent is what matters to me. You say these things like it’s not being allowed currently. Are you under the impression that the doctor’s orders overrides the will of the patients? That if I had cancer and wished for just saline, the doctor would strap me down and pump me full of chemo? Or do you believe that government mandated health care will require the above scenario to take place? Because I can’t think of another way to interpret what you’ve written above. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/666 "2010-03-03T17:02:46Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > You’re the one making the claim without the weight of evidence - that if we just removed government involvement more, the free market would solve everything. You’re the one making the claim that I’m making that claim. Supply a cite; I don’t think the free market would solve everything, and IIRC haven’t said so. I have, IIRC, said the opposite, repeatedly, throughout this thread. > [@](#): > > It is essentially dogma - you think the free market is the perfect solution to every problem. Your dogma is that I think that; I don’t. Can you demonstrate otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/667 "2010-03-03T17:08:29Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > You say these things like it’s not being allowed currently. Are you under the impression that the doctor’s orders overrides the will of the patients? That if I had cancer and wished for just saline, the doctor would strap me down and pump me full of chemo? Or do you believe that government mandated health care will require the above scenario to take place? Because I can’t think of another way to interpret what you’ve written above. Er, no; that’s not it, at all. Take a good look at what Ravenman said. _ **He** _ introduced the idea of requiring sick people to take herbal tea; I replied that I’d rather leave it up to individual patients. Obviously individual patients can do that now, and I’m not claiming they’d lose that right under government-mandated health care; I merely answered Ravenman’s question – an example he chose for reasons you’d need to take up with him – by saying I’d rather leave it up to individuals. Ravenman asked about saline drips. I replied that I’d like to leave that choice up to patients likewise. It has _ **nothing** _ to do with whether (a) patients can do so now, or whether (b) they’d lose that right under government-mandated health care; it’s his chosen example, I’m just replying to it. That’s how you should interpret my answers to Ravenman’s questions; I’m answering _ **his** _ questions, full stop. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/668 "2010-03-03T17:25:15Z")
Gotcha. I understand now. But do you understand that the purpose of his questions was, like mine, to create absurd situations that could never ever be implemented? That the entire point of our argument is that it’s not always a good idea (or a rational idea, or a legal idea, or a practical idea) to test out every hypothetical you may have just because it’s never been done before? I propose that we eliminate health care problems in this country by killing everyone over 30. We can have free market Runners go and collect the people who don’t wish to submit. Do you see how we don’t need to even perform an experiment to determine that it’s probably (though gosh, by no means certainly) a bad idea? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/669 "2010-03-03T17:25:49Z")
Have you ever heard the term “concrete thinking?” In which the mind isn’t able to grasp any point made beyond those that are literally spelled out in a statement? The inability to grasp abstract reasoning? Obliviousness to impression, tone, or theme? The point of my examples wasn’t to literally propose that people be forced to take herbal tea. My comments are directed at the absurd notion that we should do things that are unsupported by any good evidence just to see what happens. I hope I’ve clarified my point somewhat. ETA: If not, this link may help describe concrete thinking further. And in case it isn’t immediately obvious, you appear to have a problem with concrete thinking. That’s why I’m bringing it up. [http://projectlearnet.org/tutorials/concrete\_vs\_abstract\_thinking.html](http://projectlearnet.org/tutorials/concrete_vs_abstract_thinking.html) EagainTA: And by “you,” I’m talking about The Other Waldo Pepper, not Ednerw24, or myself. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/670 "2010-03-03T17:36:49Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The point of my examples wasn’t to literally propose that people be forced to take herbal tea. My comments are directed at the absurd notion that we should do things that are unsupported by any good evidence just to see what happens. > > I hope I’ve clarified my point somewhat. And my point – which my comments were directed at – was directed at the notion that we should interfere with the decisions of consenting adults in a free market just to see what happens. Each of my concrete answers to your literal proposals _ **did** _ accurately sum up my specific response, but was _ **also** _ consistent with the abstract reasoning I’d apply to yet other situations beyond those – as I made explicit in the final sentence of that post you’re now addressing, a sentence I supplied just in case you were unable to grasp my general point from the specific examples. I hope I’ve clarified my point somewhat. It’s also the abstract-and-general reason why I specifically disagree with Ender’s latest concrete-and-absurd proposal: > [@](#): > > I propose that we eliminate health care problems in this country by killing everyone over 30. We can have free market Runners go and collect the people who don’t wish to submit. The people over 30 do not, presumably, consent in that specific and concrete proposal; therefore my particular objection here would mirror those I apply in other contexts, as per my abstract and general objection to stepping in when someone wants to refuse anything of the sort – be it the concrete example of “herbal tea” or the concrete example of “getting killed by a Runner”. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/671 "2010-03-03T17:40:33Z")
The funny thing is that you say you understand what concrete reasoning is, and then you go on to make a literal response to the idea we should kill people over 30. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/672 "2010-03-03T17:47:13Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The funny thing is that you say you understand what concrete reasoning is, and then you go on to make a literal response to the idea we should kill people over 30. And, again, I’m careful to spell out that I have a general and abstract reason for objecting to anything of the sort – which happens to include my literal response to each of the particular and concrete examples getting brought up. So long as you and Ender keep mentioning stuff on that level, I’m going to respond in kind – while I’ll of course keep continuing to mention the _ **other** _ level as well. Give me a specific and concrete scenario and I’ll give you a like answer – _ **plus** _ a general and abstract one. What more do you want? ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/673 "2010-03-03T18:08:52Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Yes, sometimes you do. And sometimes you don’t. > > The majority of Americans are, currently, satisfied with their health insurance; even with the antitrust exemption, the market is doing that well. There’s a plan afoot in Congress to introduce major changes, but most Americans don’t like it and want our legislators to start over working piece-by-piece on items that stand a better chance of garnering bipartisan support; there’s no enthusiasm for instituting “expert” recommendations RIGHT NOW OMG, but rather the opposite. > > I don’t want _ **them** _ to conduct their experiment just 'cause they wanna – and most Americans _ **likewise** _ don’t want the experiment currently proposed by the left to get conducted. Eliminating the antitrust exemption, though, _ **does** _ have bipartisan support; let’s conduct _ **that** _ experiment and give the free market a chance to earn the business of consenting adults first. If problems still remain and public support _ **then** _ arises for an “expert” solution, by all means call for some at that date. This post makes a lot more sense when you replace “Americans” with “I”. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/674 "2010-03-03T18:15:37Z")
> [@kingbighair](#): > > This post makes a lot more sense when you replace “Americans” with “I”. If that helps you. Still, the fact remains: I’m satisfied with my coverage, _ **and** _ so are a majority of Americans. I want Congress to scrap everything and start over; so, _ **too,** _ do a majority of Americans. Swap in any word you want to add some additional claim; the original claim remains as well, regardless. ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/675 "2010-03-03T18:30:02Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > If that helps you. > > Still, the fact remains: I’m satisfied with my coverage, _ **and** _ so are a majority of Americans. I want Congress to scrap everything and start over; so, _ **too,** _ do a majority of Americans. Swap in any word you want to add some additional claim; the original claim remains as well, regardless. So would you support a bill that did not change existing coverage? In other words, a bill that lets people keep the coverage they already have? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/676 "2010-03-03T18:44:26Z")
> [@kingbighair](#): > > So would you support a bill that did not change existing coverage? In other words, a bill that lets people keep the coverage they already have? Well, look, there’s a reason why Obama typically prefaces his remarks on the subject by reassuring folks that people who are happy with their coverage will be able to keep it; that’s presumably the starting point for getting anything else done. So, yeah, let’s figure that’s a given – and then you can show me a bill that lets people keep the coverage they already have _ **and** _ kills the antitrust exemption, along with a bill that lets people keep the coverage they already have _ **and** _ opens up competition across state lines, along with a bill that lets people keep the coverage they already have _ **and** _ provides coverage to yet other people. Put each of those on the table and we can decide which bills to pass and which to shoot down. ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/677 "2010-03-03T19:05:19Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, look, there’s a reason why Obama typically prefaces his remarks on the subject by reassuring folks that people who are happy with their coverage will be able to keep it; that’s presumably the starting point for getting anything else done. I do not disagree that he uses this line as a political point. However, I would argue it is not just a political saying to pass the bill. In terms of implementation, it would be unwise to drastically alter existing coverage. People become very afraid of sudden change and the blowback would be heavy. For that reason, I think it is not just a political point, but one of substance and reality (at least planned - nobody knows what the future will bring). > [@](#): > > So, yeah, let’s figure that’s a given – and then you can show me a bill that lets people keep the coverage they already have _ **and** _ kills the antitrust exemption, along with a bill that lets people keep the coverage they already have _ **and** _ opens up competition across state lines, along with a bill that lets people keep the coverage they already have _ **and** _ provides coverage to yet other people. Put each of those on the table and we can decide which bills to pass and which to shoot down. Just wondering - why have these separate bills when one will accomplish the same with less effort? I am trying to figure out why this so called incremental change is better than a single change when the effects of both incremental or single change will be felt at the same time. Leading Republicans suggest this because it will draw the process out and they will gain politically. Surely you have a principled reason. And are you at all persuaded by legitimate experts who say your proposed solutions will not be as much of a boon as you hope? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/678 "2010-03-03T19:23:24Z")
> [@kingbighair](#): > > I do not disagree that he uses this line as a political point. However, I would argue it is not just a political saying to pass the bill. In terms of implementation, it would be unwise to drastically alter existing coverage. People become very afraid of sudden change and the blowback would be heavy. For that reason, I think it is not just a political point, but one of substance and reality (at least planned - nobody knows what the future will bring). I apologize if I implied otherwise; I’m not trying to say he’s simply using the line as a political point, I agree that it’s meant to reflect substance and reality. In fact, I _ **want** _ to note that he’s emphasizing it for the reason you state; that’s _ **my** _ point, about it being “unwise to drastically alter existing coverage.” Which brings me to this: > [@](#): > > Just wondering - why have these separate bills when one will accomplish the same with less effort? I am trying to figure out why this so called incremental change is better than a single change when the effects of both incremental or single change will be felt at the same time. Because, as you say, it’s “unwise to drastically alter existing coverage.” (And, as you say, “nobody knows what the future will bring.”) That’s why I want incremental change: strike down the antitrust exemption, and _ **then** _ see what the future brings – and _ **then,** _ if needed, introduce additional change. > [@](#): > > Leading Republicans suggest this because it will draw the process out and they will gain politically. Surely you have a principled reason. And are you at all persuaded by legitimate experts who say your proposed solutions will not be as much of a boon as you hope? Maybe they’re right. Maybe they’re not. Let’s find out whether an incremental fix is good enough; the alternative is doing something drastic, despite the fact that nobody knows what the future will bring. My principled reason is that I default to letting consenting adults make their own decisions in a free market before asking experts to propose an alternate solution; I can be argued out of that position on this or that subject given a pressing need, but, again, that’s just not the case in this case; you hasten to explain that Obama doesn’t just use his reassurance as a political point but also to reflect reality – but _ **both** _ of those emphasize that most people currently report satisfaction. Given that, I see no compelling reason to skip right past an incremental free-market experiment and jump straight to the big change; let’s only do that if – as you say – it’s not as much of a boon as I hope. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/679 "2010-03-03T19:39:34Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I can be argued out of that position on this or that subject given a pressing need, but, again, that’s just not the case in this case This is the problem. YOU don’t see a pressing need. However, 15% of our population is without health insurance. Premiums are killing the middle and lower classes (mine is about to jump 35% ($600/month to $810/month for family coverage subsidized by my employer)). But you’re okay, so what’s the rush? Then pushing cost aside, we can’t even be sure of our coverage because should catastrophic illness hit, who knows if we’ll be recinded due to acne we had when we were a teenager? You’re looking through the wrong end of the binoculars. There is EVERY reason for sweeping changes to our healthcare system. Just because it isn’t personally affecting you, yet, doesn’t mean the system isn’t woefully broken. The only analogy I can come up with is something like contributing to Madoff’s pyramid scheme, then crying when people want to make it illegal because YOU were seeing payments from it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487/680 "2010-03-03T19:56:36Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > This is the problem. YOU don’t see a pressing need. However, 15% of our population is without health insurance. Premiums are killing the middle and lower classes (mine is about to jump 35% ($600/month to $810/month for family coverage subsidized by my employer)). But you’re okay, so what’s the rush No, dammit, it’s not just _ **me** _ that’s okay. It’s _ **most** _ Americans that are okay. I still want change to help folks who aren’t satisfied – but since most people currently report being satisfied, I don’t see any pressing reason to skip past the part where we give the free market a try first. > [@](#): > > You’re looking through the wrong end of the binoculars. There is EVERY reason for sweeping changes to our healthcare system. Just because it isn’t personally affecting you, yet, doesn’t mean the system isn’t woefully broken. I’m saying (a) it’s not personally affecting the _ **majority** _ – and _ **despite** _ that, I’m on board with saying (b) that we should try to fix it anyway. I merely point to the majority satisfaction – and, again, Obama’s need to reassure people that he won’t change what they like – when noting that we’re in a situation where experiments with incremental reform probably make more sense than drastic change, because most people are okay. I couldn’t make that argument if I were the only one not yet personally affected; I couldn’t even make it if I only had a good-sized minority on my side. I can only make that argument because most people report satisfaction and want Congress to scrap the current proposal in favor of starting over and considering stuff piece by piece. The majority is in no hurry; as it happens, I’m also in no hurry – and for the same reason. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dancing-on-the-grave-of-health-care-reform/527487.md?page=35)