He mentions Tort reform, that is one we missed in our list. Tort reform would go a long way to lowering our healthcare costs, as most physicians will run unnecessary tests just to cover their butt in case of a lawsuit. Plus, every dollar a physician or hospital pays for lawsuit insurance, is a dollar they pass onto the consumer...
Ideally, tort reform should lower the cost. But I am paranoid that hospitals and doctors may continue to charge the same rate, do the unnecessary tests and pocket the profit.
I've done enough research to where I'm convinced our quality of care will go down, and our waiting times will go up. If the government does succeed in putting any kind of price restrictions in place, our innovation will also suffer. People/Companies don't do research out of benevolence alone, they are looking to make a profit. If there is no profit, there will be no research, or at least a lot less of it...
I know one can argue that this sets a precedence on other things and I will not deny that. But in my mind, unless I am missing something, we are talking about a gov funded insurance option. I am not looking at it like it will be the only player. The private players will still exist. As you have stated, a gov funded option will most definitely be littered with low quality and poor service. Where I stand now, I will probably not take it. But from my step daughters stand-point, it may be god send. Her employer provides no insurance and so she has none. At least it is something instead of nothing at all. After all, the doctors and hospitals are not providing the service for free. You can also argue the pre-existing condition. In literal terms, removing pre-existing condition removes the definition of 'insurance' and that is a major beef for the insurance companies - and rightfully so. But if you really look at their pre-existing condition clauses, they put almost the whole wide world in there. Even if you took antibiotics for a major infection, they can put you on a wait time and tack on a surcharge to your premium. Eliminating pre-existing condition does help out a ton of people - I am sure even Bosco. You can argue that as socilaist/marxist whatever - but you cannot deny that it does help a good chunk of the people. But it just does not make business sense and that is why the mandate for all to have insurance. You just cannot have one without the other. I agree, it is an unpopular way to achieve a goal just by the principle of it - principle of freedom. But is it an effective way? I unfortunately think it is.