Originally Posted by pjohns

To assert that we can do whatever "we want to do," irrespective of constitutional restraints, is not very well considered, in my opinion. For one thing, it confuses the meaning of democracy (in its current incarnation) with undiluted majoritarianism.

In short, it is eerily reminiscent of the old saw about two foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner...



I would imagine that most healthcare plans will cover those legendary $10 aspirins; and that HMOs and PPOs, at least, will whittle them down to reasonable size, before paying for them.

Besides, even though our healthcare plan will pay for medications, I have often taken aspirin, acetaminophen, and other medications (including prescription drugs) to my wife at the hospital, simply because the nurses and techs on duty are usually very busy, and are therefore not always as reliable as one might prefer.

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Obama says you don't have to give up what you have.

Originally Posted by pjohns

Well, that is one of the current selling points. But I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in this declaration.

As a rough analogy, I would assert that the Democrats are probably correct when they suggest that Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) are likely to attract the young and the healthy, thereby leaving only the middle-aged (and older) and the not-so-healthy in traditional, fee-for-service plans; and that this will inevitably drive up premiums and/or decrease the level of coverage, due to the significant change in the demographics comprising the risk pool.

Likewise, a universal healthcare plan will likely lead to the closing of most employer-sponsored healthcare plans, as businesspeople will be more than happy to rid themselves of this expense, and encourage employees to get their coverage instead through The Benefactor State.