That's disingenuous; tax break doesn't go to the provider of the service. A subsidy does, and so it equates an incentive to increase the price since the higher the price the higher the subsidy.

A billion here and a billion there, eventually you're talking about real money.

The compromise in the works won't contain costs or insure more people. It simply transfers more wealth from those who can't afford it to corporations. It is worse than nothing, so that's what we'll end up with.

Subsides alone are a band-aid that won't do much for people that can afford health insurance now, but may not be able to in the future given the current level of medical-related inflation.

No, the primary goal of insurance reform is to keep costs down for individuals (and businesses) that already have it, including those on Medicare, because it will be bankrupting the country over time.. Part of the way to do that is to encourage people who don't have it to buy it, a good portion of which don't need subsidies (e.g., young and feeling invulnerable). The best way to do that is offer a cheap, public option. Subsidies for those that can't afford is a worthwhile endeavor, but it is a secondary policy goal given the additional cost.

I think insurers do have an incentive to help re-engineer the delivery system. Frankly the understanding of how to structure payments to encourage integrated, evidence-based organized care is still in the developmental stage. What we know is fee for service does not work. Trying to limit excessive spending except through better clinical process doesn't work. But there are people working on it.

Under a market regime where insurers cannot profit from denying coverage, it makes sense that they will have to compete based on forming the largest risk pools. I am not sure what form the exchanges will take. Obviously the larger the population it serves (assuming there is 1 exchange, or a few regional exchanges, but not 50 1-state only exchanges) the better chance there will be significant competition. If you cannot manipulate your clientele then you turn to cost cutting. That's a real possibility.

Shrug. The American public is known for recognizing a bad decision and just moving right on past it.

One of the great lessons of my life was my quest for revenge bumping up against the concrete American wall of moving right on past the bad stuff. I despised Nixon and wanted him behind bars. Ford pardoned him and lost a Presidential election because of it. After that election, the American public moved right on and it took me a few years to do the same.

This is the same sort of thing. The American public doesn't do well in exacting revenge on past political deeds. They participate in the correction and then move on.

Shrug. No one said lessons would be easy for everyone. But the public will not get into this revenge stuff.

Nope, little one, that vote was the consequential one in the last ten years. It was for war and that really matters. The light thinkers (or perhaps non-thinkers) want to believe that a country breaks up another country (literally with bombs) and then says "oops" and leaves. That's not the way reality works for countries whose people have a bit of a conscience.

It was a huge waste for our country--Nancy knew that and so did Obama. In fact, the majority of Democrats knew that and voted accordingly. It matters in my accounting of things.

The other policy issues you list got a real receptive yawn from the American public. As a political leader for the country and not just a narrow sliver, Nancy has to recognize that and move on. That's also reality.

The health reform bill will be the most consequential vote since the 1960's. And it seems to me that Nancy will be on the right side of that, too.

Gee, votes matter. Who knew?