To: Alighieri who wrote (13713 ) 3/2/2010 10:39:47 AM From: TimF 1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 42652 "Obamacare", as you call it, contained from the start provisions that would review and regulate best_practices. So an Obama sponsored committee is going to determine best practices for the country, and save money while not reducing (or even while increasing) quality? That type of thing is a lot easier to talk about than do. And I'm not referring to the political barriers to getting the plan passed (although they are strong), but rather the practical difficulties in getting the plan to work as expected, even if Obama could sweep away all political barriers with a wave of his hand. Supposedly wise and efficient central control has been tried before. Its likely to have little effect, and if it does have effect its likely to be negative. Question back to you: What is the value add of private insurance in health care? That's an oddly phrases question. The value of insurance isn't "to health care", but to the insured people. No proposal at any time suggested a "take over" of health insurance. Nonsense. Many people suggested a government "single payer", or "Medicare for all", that's a direct take over of the health insurance sector. And even what's being proposed now is to a great extent a take over. Mandating purchase, mandating sales criteria (no exclusion for preexisting conditions), setting prices (at the very least controls on prices for people with preexisting conditions), mandating coverage levels... If the government controls how you operate a business it has effectively taken over control of the business. Maybe its not a total takeover, but its a rather extensive one.