The "historic" health care bill

I was never convinced that the health care bill that will soon become law was a very good bill. This does not mean, however, that I approve (or ever approved) of the status quo. I don't understand why the fight was always presented as either keeping the current system or passing this bill, as if those were the only two choices. The opponents of the bill were portrayed as money-loving, insurance executive-loving, haters of sick people. Whereas those in favor of the bill were angelic saviors with the powers to heal. Or at least that's how I read the debate (admittedly, from afar).

The supporters of the bill presume that with the signature of a pen they can "guarantee world-class health care for every American." I think supporters are somewhat deluded by what this bill will accomplish. They are celebrating like all our health care problems are now solved, whereas I believe they are far from solved, and there will be many, many, more tough decisions in the years ahead. Plus, large parts of the bill don't even take effect until 2014 (i.e., the insurance exchanges and mandates).

Anyway, for some thoughts on the trade-offs (yes, this bill is not without its costs, something that few proponents seem to mention or act like they are aware of) I suggest reading the always thoughtful Russ Roberts. His views more or less echo how I feel. For a longer discussion of some of the claims bill proponents made and some predictions to the contrary, read this post.

I hope things turn out well with this bill, but I have my doubts. Time will tell. Hopefully though, we won't turn our health care system into this.