"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Getting back to current events, I still think sweeping change was the
wrong way to go. Bit
by bit change, incrementalism, would have been a better plan over the long
run.


"And one more thing: employment-based health insurance, which is already
regulated in a way that mostly prevents this kind of abuse, is unraveling.
Less than half of workers at small businesses were covered last year, down
from 58 percent a decade ago. This means that in the absence of reform, an
ever-growing number of Americans will be at the mercy of the likes of
Assurant Health."
"So what's the answer? Americans overwhelmingly favor guaranteeing coverage
to those with pre-existing conditions - but you can't do that without
pursuing broad-based reform. To make insurance affordable, you have to keep
currently healthy people in the risk pool, which means requiring that
everyone or almost everyone buy coverage. You can't do that without
financial aid to lower-income Americans so that they can pay the premiums.
So you end up with a tripartite policy: elimination of medical
discrimination, mandated coverage, and premium subsidies."

"Or to put it another way, you end up with something like the health care
plan Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts in 2006, and the very similar
plan the House either will or won't pass in the next few days. Comprehensive
reform is the only way forward."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/op...19krugman.html

I don't know what makes you think the bill that's about to become law isn't
just the beginning Wes. We'll certainly see a lot more over the next few
years and you shouldn't be surprised to see a public option and then single
payer at some point in the future.

JC