# The Health Care Summit: What did you think? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2010, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452 "2010-02-25T23:33:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/21 "2010-02-26T05:12:38Z")
What about pricing? Does everyone have a different price depending on risk profile? And does this have any impact on hiring decisions and / or salary? And also, what if I want to forgoe company sponsored healthcare as I aleady have private? ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/22 "2010-02-26T05:43:22Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Ahh…clearer. > > So my follow questions for understanding.. > > 1. Who covers any problems in the 12 - 18 months while I am waiting for the “new” insurance to kick in? > 2. How does price enter into this if it is mandatory? (or just common practise) that employer insurance covers pre-existing, how does that work? 1. I don’t think anyone does except you pay out of pocket. 2. What do you mean? I really don’t know how it works (I’ve never had a job that offered health benefits), but my impression was it was generally a flat rate taken out of almost everyone’s wages. I am under the impression that a young, healthy 25 year old pays the same premiums as a 63 year old with heart disease. But I could be wrong, and some employers charge different premiums based on health parameters. However I am fairly sure single people are charged less than those with kids and spouses. I really don’t know. There are several problems with the system though. You asked if it had an effect on hiring. Yeah, it does. One issue in the US is that employers do not want to hire anyone over 50 because of higher health care costs. Another is that small businesses can see their premiums double if someone gets sick. So if you have a business with 50 employees and one requires a half million in cancer treatments, then insurance premiums for that business may double from $5000 a person to $10,000. So employers (especially small business owners) are incentivized to avoid sick people, and/or to fire them if they get sick. There are tons of reasons our system is a mess. If you want to forego employer health coverage, you lose some of the benefits but pay for them anyway. If a plan costs $5000 you might have $2000 taken out of your paycheck but the other $3000 is money you’ll never see. So you can opt out of employer coverage, but you are still paying for much of it. Employer coverage is group coverage, and I think group coverage is mandated to cover pre-existing conditions. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/23 "2010-02-26T05:47:36Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > You left off the flip side of the coin - it is also the main line of defense the insurance providers have against the slugs that don’t bother with purchasing insurance until they have a health issue. The flip side of that is many people can’t purchase insurance on the private market due to pre-existing conditions, or see no reason since it’ll be rescinded once they try to use it. The 12 month pre-existing condition exclusion is supposed to help take care of that issue of people not getting insurance until they get sick. Plus health care is so fractured that you may end up spending 10 years on a job and never have health problems, then get a new job and in 2 years have major health problems. So the insurance company from your first job got tons of premiums and no expenses while the second didn’t. Either way, a mandate would take care of the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/24 "2010-02-26T05:51:55Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > **The Health Care Summit: What did you think?** I think the whole lot of them should spend less time in front of a camera and more time doing their jobs. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/25 "2010-02-26T10:20:01Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Obama was fair, and he knew the issues as well as anyone in the room, and better than most of them. He schooled Lamar Alexander, and Alexander is no policy slouch. Except that [Alexander was mostly right, and Obama was mostly wrong](http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/02/a-health-care-summit-fact-check.html). That aside, I watched a fair bit of it and I thought that Obama did fairly well, the Republicans did fairly well, and the other Democrats were atrocious. This gives me hope. Because I think after the next election Obama is going to have to work with Republicans whether he wants to or not, and frankly I think they’ll make better legislative partners than the Democrats do - especially if more of the work is done by people like Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and Lamar Alexander. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/26 "2010-02-26T11:36:49Z")
I came away with the idea that the Republicans are not going to go along with any thing that Obama wants or suggests;I think they came into the meeting with the idea of not doing anything except saying they wanted to start over. I believe they were angry that Obama was elected, and have done nothing but criticize him or his ideas since he got elected. I heard that the Republicans figured that Obama called this meeting just to make it look like he was interested in hearing the Republican ideas, which I do not think it was true, but that it did show that the Republicans had no intention of going along with any of the Bill. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/27 "2010-02-26T12:09:33Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > …In the US we have employer insurance, public insurance (for the elderly, some poor people and some government employees) and we have private market insurance. Only private market insurance has pre-existing condition clauses. Employer insurance covers pre-existing conditions… I’ve had employee-provided insurance in the US that had pre-existing-condition clauses. Has the law changed since 2003? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/28 "2010-02-26T12:46:52Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Except that [Alexander was mostly right, and Obama was mostly wrong](http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/02/a-health-care-summit-fact-check.html). Or not: [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/did\_the\_congressional\_budget\_o\_1.html](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/did_the_congressional_budget_o_1.html) > [@](#): > > Yes, the CBO found health-care reform would reduce premiums. The issue gets confused because it also found that access to subsidies would encourage people to buy more comprehensive insurance, which would mean that the value of their insurance would be higher after reform than before it. […]The bottom line is that if you’re comparing two plans that are exactly the same, costs go down after reform. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/29 "2010-02-26T12:59:45Z")
Specifically, here’s the overview from the CBO itself: [http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=434](http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=434) > [@](#): > > Effect of the Legislation on Premiums in 2016 > The effects of the proposal on premiums would differ across insurance markets. The largest effects would be seen in the nongroup market, which would grow in size under the proposal but would still account for only 17 percent of the overall insurance market in 2016. The effects on premiums would be much smaller for employer-based coverage (which accounts for five-sixths of the insurance market). > > Nongroup Market > […]The average, unsubsidized premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016[…]More than half of the enrollees in nongroup policies would get federal subsidies, and taking those subsidies into account, the amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for nongroup coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average, than the nongroup premiums charged under current law. > > Employment-Based Coverage (Small Group and Large Group Markets) > > […]In the small group market, which is defined in this analysis as consisting of employers with 50 or fewer workers, CBO and JCT estimate that the change in the average premium per person resulting from the legislation could range from an increase of 1 percent to a reduction of 2 percent in 2016 (relative to current law). In the large group market, which is defined here as consisting of employers with more than 50 workers, the legislation would yield an average premium per person that is zero to 3 percent lower in 2016 (relative to current law).[…] > > A relatively small share (about 12 percent) of people with coverage in the small group market would benefit from [the small business tax credit] credit in 2016. For those people, the cost of insurance under the proposal would be about 8 percent to 11 percent lower, on average, compared with that cost under current law. > > The reductions in premiums described above also exclude the effects of the excise tax on high-premium insurance policies offered through employers, which would have a significant impact on premiums for the affected workers but which would affect only a portion of the market in 2016. […]On balance, the average premium among the affected workers would be about 9 percent to 12 percent less than under current law. Those figures incorporate the other effects on premiums for employment-based plans that were summarized above. I think it’s obvious that the Note’s interpretation, and Lamarr’s interpretation, is pretty stupid. The note appears to have taken the highest estimated increase and decrease and averaged them, which seems pretty dumb, given the different proportions of the market and the different mitigating factors cited by the CBO. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/30 "2010-02-26T13:04:23Z")
My favorite voice in the room was that of Rep. Louise Slaughter. I was fascinated by what she had to say. Here is part of it: > [@](#): > > Eight states in this country right now have declared that domestic violence is a preexisting conditions on the grounds, I assume, that if you’ve been unlucky enough to get yourself beaten up once you might go around and do it again. > > Forty-eight percent is the higher cost for women in many cases to buy their own insurance. Believe you me, that is really discriminatory. > > In 1991, women were not included in any of the trials at the NIH because we had hormones. It wasn’t until we had a critical mass of women here that said this will not do for more than half the population of the United States, who pay taxes, that we made certain that diseases like osteoporosis, mainly a woman’s disease, cervical cancer, only a woman’s disease, uterine cancer and others were really looked at. > > Up to that point, 1991, all research at the Institutes of Health was done on white males. Now, think about that for a minute, if you will. We couldn’t do that because we said kindly would you stop doing that. \*\*It took legislation. \*\* (From the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022503133.html)) All of what she had to say (it is brief) is worth a read. As a good Democrat she did include the usual “sob story routine of telling the sad tale” of one of her constituents, as **yorick73** put it. She knows that the issue is still about people and their pain and not _really_ about dry statistics and reports and politics. **yorick** , is it that these people, these constituents, don’t seem real to you? Have you never known anyone who suffered – really experienced anguish needlessly? For what reason should the people in that room NOT be reminded of the crucial nature of the reason they are there? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/31 "2010-02-26T13:20:32Z")
One last take on the issue of premiums, from Joe Conason at Salon: > [@](#): > > The point at issue, which involved how much premiums might rise for various classes of consumers under the Senate and House bills, might sound somewhat technical. But Obama was right: the CBO study indicated that premiums would go down as much as 20 percent for families receiving the same coverage they buy now – and would go up for those who sought better coverage. > > Which would seem obvious, on reflection, and not something that Alexander, who isn’t stupid, would be likely to misunderstand. He almost certainly doesn’t, in fact, but he wants the public to misunderstand, so they will fear that their premiums will rise if “Obamacare” is enacted. As his colleagues gloatingly pointed out more than once, polls show that most Americans now believe that particular lie. [http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare\_reform/index.html?story=/opinion/conason/2010/02/25/summitry](http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/opinion/conason/2010/02/25/summitry) The rest of his piece is worth a read as a summary of the event from a liberal point of view. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/32 "2010-02-26T13:22:36Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Except that [Alexander was mostly right, and Obama was mostly wrong](http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/02/a-health-care-summit-fact-check.html). Frankly, your partisan interpretation of what happened is just as wrong as Alexander was. You have to understand the context of the exchange. They were discussing the extent to which the bill bends the cost curve. Alexander pointed to the CBO language about rising premiums. The clear implication being that the bill increases costs. But that just ain’t so, according to the CBO. Obama correctly clarified that the CBO expects that premiums will rise because people will get greater benefits. However, because of the subsidies and the fact that the plans have greater benefits, the out-of-pocket costs will decrease even for people who get better coverage. In a discussion of whether the bill increases or decreases medical costs, pointing to rising premiums is completely disingenuous if not flatly wrong in implication without pointing out that they will rise because more services are being provided. ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/33 "2010-02-26T13:39:59Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > My favorite voice in the room was that of Rep. Louise Slaughter. I was fascinated by what she had to say. Here is part of it: > > (From the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022503133.html)) > > All of what she had to say (it is brief) is worth a read. > > As a good Democrat she did include the usual “sob story routine of telling the sad tale” of one of her constituents, as **yorick73** put it. She knows that the issue is still about people and their pain and not _really_ about dry statistics and reports and politics. > > **yorick** , is it that these people, these constituents, don’t seem real to you? Have you never known anyone who suffered – really experienced anguish needlessly? For what reason should the people in that room NOT be reminded of the crucial nature of the reason they are there? She is actually quite wrong in the details about NIH research on women as far as I can tell, though she is right in the sense that they passed legislation to mandate something that was previously only a NIH policy. However, NIH made it a policy in 1986 to urge inclusion of women in studies, and did the same to encourage minority inclusion in 1987. The notion that women and minorities were not included at all prior to that is almost certainly wrong. Even though I would guess that they were vastly underrepresented or the policy wouldn’t have been needed in the first place, she could have made her point without getting the facts wrong. Also, the legislation was passed in 1993, not 1991. [http://orwh.od.nih.gov/inclusion.html](http://orwh.od.nih.gov/inclusion.html) ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/34 "2010-02-26T13:45:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Possible, but not likely. Consider this one: > > “Do you want Congress to pass major health care reform legislation this year or would you rather Congress do nothing on health care for now?” > > Pass: 46% > Nothing: 50% That’s unbelievable. People _must_ be misunderstanding the question. What were the methods on this poll? Is it a formal scientific poll or an informal survey? The only way I can make sense of this result is to think that people are thinking “If they pass it now it will be a bad bill because of all the stuff that’s going down right now. They should think about it some more first.” Or something. Is there a question on the poll that simply asks “Is the health care system in need of major reforms”? ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/35 "2010-02-26T13:54:20Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > That’s unbelievable. > > People _must_ be misunderstanding the question. > > What were the methods on this poll? Is it a formal scientific poll or an informal survey? > > The only way I can make sense of this result is to think that people are thinking “If they pass it now it will be a bad bill because of all the stuff that’s going down right now. They should think about it some more first.” Or something. > > Is there a question on the poll that simply asks “Is the health care system in need of major reforms”? I think many people are just exasperated at how long it took and lost interest, which was the goal of the GOP all along. To slow it down until the public lost interest. What I’d like to see on these polls of pro or anti HCR attitudes is how much the people answering the questions know about what is in HCR. What reforms are being done, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/36 "2010-02-26T14:12:04Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > That’s unbelievable. > > People _must_ be misunderstanding the question. > > What were the methods on this poll? Is it a formal scientific poll or an informal survey? > > The only way I can make sense of this result is to think that people are thinking “If they pass it now it will be a bad bill because of all the stuff that’s going down right now. They should think about it some more first.” Or something. > > Is there a question on the poll that simply asks “Is the health care system in need of major reforms”? Here’s [Polling Report.com](http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm). That poll appears to be one of the Fox Polls presented at the top. What you’ll see is that the do nothing percentage represents a 4% decrease since December, when the last poll was taken, so movement towards doing something is evident, even within the Fox Poll. What I find more compelling is this Newsweek survey: Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Feb. 17-18, 2010. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.6 (for all adults). “As you may know, Barack Obama has proposed a plan to change this country’s health care system. From what you have seen or heard about what he has proposed, what is your OVERALL opinion of Obama’s health care reform plan -– do you favor it or oppose it?” ``` Favor Oppose Unsure % % % ALL 40 49 11 ``` “Now I’m going to read you some SPECIFIC proposals people have made to change the health care system. As I read each one, please tell me if you personally favor or oppose this change. Here’s the first/next proposal. . . .” […] Please check Polling Report to see the favorability of the individual components. I’ll just point out one in particular: ``` "Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans" 2/17-18/10 50 42 8 ``` […] “Now please think about the proposals I just described to you. ALL of these proposals are included in Barack Obama’s health care reform plan. Having heard these details, what is your OVERALL opinion of Obama’s plan – do you favor it or oppose it?” ``` Favor Oppose Unsure % % % ALL 48 43 9 ``` So, when you tell people the actual elements of the bill, they pretty much like them, and the bill moves from being disfavored to favored. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/37 "2010-02-26T15:09:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I’m not getting your point here, **John**. I suggest that many of the people who would truthfully say they oppose the current bill because its a gecko when they wanted a Godzilla. I lean in their direction, as I noted, because this watered down crap bites it. You tell me that is implausible and show me another statistic much like the other, that people are opposed to passing the bill. > > A bill is suggested to have a hunting season for IT professionals (they don’t breed much, so cullling the herd is seldom an issue, but hypothetical…). You oppose it on humanitarian grounds, I oppose it because it would waste perfectly good ammo. The pollster asks, we both truthfully respond that we oppose any such bill. By no stretch of the imagination is that an agreement about the nature of IT professionals. There isn’t a lot of nuance in “Do you want Congress to pass major health care reform legislation…” Is your objection to the word “major”? But let’s put that aside. Are you still standing by your claim that “Pubbie speakers repeatedly baldly stating that the American people don’t want HRC”? I’d like to see a cite supporting that. ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/38 "2010-02-26T15:14:59Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Specifically, here’s the overview from the CBO itself: > > [http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=434](http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=434) > > I think it’s obvious that the Note’s interpretation, and Lamarr’s interpretation, is pretty stupid. The note appears to have taken the highest estimated increase and decrease and averaged them, which seems pretty dumb, given the different proportions of the market and the different mitigating factors cited by the CBO. Did you guys gloss over the part about “subsidies”? Who’s subsidzing what? Betcha $50 it’s the taxpayers, and while premiums may go down for some, it won’t for everyone. And, there is no accounting for dollars lost when taxpayers fund those “subsidies” ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/39 "2010-02-26T15:24:55Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > My favorite voice in the room was that of Rep. Louise Slaughter. I was fascinated by what she had to say. Here is part of it: > > (From the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022503133.html)) > > All of what she had to say (it is brief) is worth a read. > > As a good Democrat she did include the usual “sob story routine of telling the sad tale” of one of her constituents, as **yorick73** put it. She knows that the issue is still about people and their pain and not _really_ about dry statistics and reports and politics. > > **yorick** , is it that these people, these constituents, don’t seem real to you? Have you never known anyone who suffered – really experienced anguish needlessly? For what reason should the people in that room NOT be reminded of the crucial nature of the reason they are there? Not **yorick** , but I have an answer for this one… The job of the government should primarily be about “dry statistics and reports”. We have a problem with health costs in America - okay, fine. But the role of government isn’t (IMO) to dry your tears and lift your spirit up. It should be to address issues that effect the citizens, with a clear eye and mind. I have numerous people in my family who have “suffered” with pain, cancer, total disability, chronic conditions, no money for medical bills, etc. I still feel that way. Sob stories have no place in that room, because good policy that benefits all interests need to be analyzed rationally. CBO numbers and market studies are the only types of things that should matter. Some people get all misty eyed about abortion or the death penalty - should we have to hear sob stories about those too? Why not just “make it a crime to lonely or sad” and then push money toward pink unicorns and caramel popcorn? All rational people recognize that our medical insurance industry and Medicare/caid are out of control. What is your problem with doing this a step at a time? Start with one issue - say, pre-existing conditions - and then work that from beginning to end. Then, approach a new issue, like tort reform, and without distraction and grandstanding and sob stories, work through that. Once we put all that through the hopper, then put together real insurance reform that will work. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452/40 "2010-02-26T15:34:11Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > You left off the flip side of the coin - it is also the main line of defense the insurance providers have against the slugs that don’t bother with purchasing insurance until they have a health issue. And that’s why everyone needs to pay – one way or another – for a basic minimum of health insurance. It could be by the government requiring everyone to have that basic minimum, or by taxes being used to supply a basic minimum, but it must be compulsory. Otherwise, healthy young people won’t buy insurance, because it’s not good value for money; and the insurance companies raise premiums, because they are only getting the expensive high-risk customers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-summit-what-did-you-think/530452.md?page=3)