Cover all uninsured, reduce the cost to business.

In addition to promoting the idea of risk pooling (particularly to the under 40s), as was done with the Social Security debate, we can emphasize how ridiculous it is to expect people to take charge of their own health care decisions (as opposed to taking charge of their own HEALTH, a very different thing).  

There is a commercial that runs on CNBC where a guy is standing in his kitchen with a knife while someone tries to talk him through an operation.  The tag line is that you wouldn;t try do-it-yourself medicine, so why try do-it-yourself investing?  If you thought it would be complicated being in full control of all financial planning for retirement, just look at the Medicare drug debacle to see what Health Segregation Accounts would be like.

This is long-winded way of saying that in addition to risk-pooling, we need to promote the validity and viability of single-payer health care.  We pay more than any other industrial country for much poorer care.  It stands to reason that fragmentation and insurance middlemen are costing billions.  These disappear with single payer.  Doctors are free to practice medicine instead of doubling as accountants.  It can be done by allowing people to buy into Medicare as an alternative starting at age 50 or so, with a tax deduction.  Perhaps allowing big employers such as GM to convert to this system could work. But this is thre direction we need to go in.

After this bill passed, they left the government for LUCRATIVE JOBS with the DRUG COMPANIES.

This major reporting was not picked up by any of the blogs, who seem on a mission to help out the right wing by suppressing some of the worst shit to hit the fan.  

What is the problem with US health care: quality, or cost? It is emphatically the second (if you can afford it, our hospitals are state-of-the-art), and thus it seems to me, consumer-driven "solutions" are ultimately wrongheaded.

Of course, this all assumes that Bush is acting in good faith with his proposal. Not exactly the best bet given the last six years.

FSA's allow an account to be set up, collecting tax free savings for use for any diagnosed medical issue.  FSA's are a good thing, established in 1978 they allow for us high end users of insured health care to spend tax free dollars on copays, drugs (over and under counter)and underdeductable payments. If you have children, have an FSA.

HSA's are a morphed FSA program that make you rely on the tax free account and high deductable insurance plan for your entire health care needs.

I love the timing - Bush touts a new health plan after the Medicare Part D disaster, will he?

Many people, especially seniors are screaming over the utterly incompetent way the big Pharma pork filled Medicare part D plan has been implemented: phone lines jammed so that pharmacists can't get through to find out patients coverage information; people told that they have no coverage and forced to choose between paying a several hundred dollar co-pay or going without their vitally important medication; tons of plans very complicated plans for seniors to choose from, which is made even worse for them since the information is primarily available online and how many seniors are super net savvy?

Has President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress taken no notice of how badly they've botched things already? Do they really expect Americans, especially American seniors to trust them again with health care issues? And so soon after their utter failure?

Maybe they aren't just out of touch, maybe they're down right delusional.

Click through to watch the video Harry Reid used to demonstrate his point.

   "If you like what Bush has done with Medicare, you'll LOVE what he's going to do to your health care!!"