Donkasaurus Post

David Brooks suggests the latter.

The Daily Howler’s Bob Somerby, who has been a big advocate of health care reform, seems to somewhat agree. 

Is health care reform a good idea? 

It does appear that for the extravagant amount that we pay; the huge amounts that are being frittered on endless offices of paperwork and insurance company profits even down to the most middling levels of care that have no need for a huge cost usurping middle man; the enormous portion of the federal budget that is consumed on health care expenditures; the lack of choice under some insurance plans; the intercession between patients and doctors control of care “formerly known as” preauthorization; the enormous — and still rapidly rising — portion of our GDP that health care commands; the fact that tens of millions of Americans are uninsured, often leaving them to get only last second, ridiculously inefficient and expensive, “stop the bleeding” type of care that either a) the rest of America either pays for, or b) the uninsured themselves overpay for; our health care, overall, isn’t all that great.  Particularly considering how exceptional our technology and knowledge is. 

So, maybe, some type of sensible reform, is a good idea.

But is passing a bill that in essence expands essentially the current system — while requiring more and more Americans to actually get the same over insurance (instead of the far more sensible “catastrophic” insurance) that is at the root of much of the excessive cost — a good idea?

Likely not.