I try not to pick apart the NYT op-eds, as they are not supposed to be well researched arguments. But the below makes a case against current healthcare reform plans, while trying to argue for them.
The author's sister was tragically disabled in an auto accident. Now she is receiving health coverage from the state.
The author laments the limited nature of these programs, and hopes that exchanges will come into existence so that her sister will be able to buy covergage. But, how is it realistic to have "insurance" that you only buy after the accident? This is the basis of the argument against Obama's reforms...it creates an unreal moral hazard.
While I hate to create another health insurance thread, what do you all think of the financial impact of Obamacare? Ignoring constitutionality, role of government, etc. can this bill be realistically implemented?