What kind of reform do you want? What's your solution?

This has been asked of me many, many times. I like many of the things discussed on the Heritage Foundation. The ideas are not all unique to them. They include opening insurance options across state lines to increase competition, medical savings accounts, tort reform, and other ideas.

In other words, pretty much business as usual. Those who can afford insurance get medical treatment; those that can't are SOL.

Frankly, the option most people want is the one that will keep everyone else from getting "free" care (because the masses are obviously a bunch of freeloaders and wouldn't be sick in the first place if they were decent human beings who had earned God's favor) but be available for them to take advantage of if they need it (because they have made valuable contributions to society and their illnesses are merely Job-like trials that God uses to test the loyalty of His favorites, and therefore actually a sign of decent, God-fearing living.)

One thing to keep in mind is that not all of the opposition to the current proposal is not because it is too progressive. Some significant portion of that opposition is from people who feel it is not progressive enough.

So the question would be how many of those people would oppose the plan when the choice is "this or nothing" as opposed to "this compared to your ideal."

That is exactly right, Alex. That's why Bush's approval rating was so low - he had lost the conservatives too. This is why Obama's approval rating is crashing. He's losing the far left (and a large portion of the independents).

Howard Dean said he'd vote no on the current bill. Olberman said he'd rather go to jail than do some of the things in the current plan (being forced to purchase insurance from an insurance company).

But the dems are desperate to try to pass anything so they can claim a victory - it is the same as the republicans trying to block everything so they can do the same.

Yes, by my point is that much of that opposition from the left is essentially meaningless as it'll evaporate (though obviously not all of it) in the face of the status quo.

I haven't heard the Olbermann quote, but if that's accurate it's pretty stupid since he's already buying insurance from an insurance company and nobody is making him.

Well, I share some reservations with him about a Massachusets-style solution, where everyone is required to buy insurance, else face a penalty from the government, which I assume is what he's referring to. But then, as is well known around here, my ideal endpoint is to see private insurance phased out entirely, so that's no real surprise.

That's fine, but saying he'd go to jail before buying private insurance is stupid when he's already buying private insurance.

I can see an objection to being forced by the government to buy a private product but then he's not going to jail over car insurance (I know he doesn't drive so I don't know if he personally buys any, but then he wouldn't qualify for any version of the public option that's been discussed either since he has employer provided insurance so both are purely hypothetical for him).

I don't see any stupidity in differentiating between choosing to buy private insurance vs. being required to under penalty of law. Whether he'd stand buy his word and refuse his employer-provided insurance and risk said penalty by not buying any insurance should such a provision be enacted remains to be seen, and will likely turn out to be hyperbole. But I don't think currently paying, by choice, for private insurance disqualifies someone from being opposed to being legally required to buy it.