The House has Passed the Healthcare Reform Bill
 

Story here

Well that's interesting. 220 to 215 with one Republican crossing the aisle. It's watered down almost to the point where it won't help very many people, but at least it's passed.

Thoughts?

expensive, watered down bill is a waste of time, IMO

I have to admit I've been to busy to read/learn much about the current bill that passed and the changes that it contains.

I read HR 3200 cover to cover, but I've not read the new incarnation yet either. From what I've heard, there are quite a few things I would interpret as problems, along the same vein as Derwood's complaints.

If it was a damned good healthcare system, I wouldn't care if it was expensive, though.

I'm curious to see what will meet the standard of insurance will mean. Will you have to purchase an actual health insurance policy? Or would a type of minimed plan keep you legal. Like a strictly accident only policy, or a hospital confinement or indemnity policy? I sell supplemental plans like these to fill the gaps that typical health insurance policys have in them. I wonder if this market will increase due to this legislation.

Liability health insurance? What a can of worms....

Edit: I'm really happy for you USA, and I'm gonna let you finish, but France has the best healthcare system of all time!

Hey, congratulations on the first steps toward the preferred health care choice of industrialized nations. Better late than never.

I really hope the final form the system takes is something workable and somewhat comparable to other working systems.

If that doesn't work out, do you have an extra room I can rent?

Can someone explain to me (in layman's terms) what reforms are ... I always felt people were in general against passing bills because when a bill required reformation the train of thought would go as thus:

"hmmm, why should we reform this, because it's currently a bad idea, which means the original idea itself was bad ... so we should just scrap the whole thing!"

I feel this is a step back ... I was originally on the fence about it but now I KNOW its a bad idea.

You can claim refugee status here if you ever fall victim to a death panel.

Don't mind me. Just popped in for a second. :)

I was watching CNN I think in the wee hours this morning that showed some of the lawmakers voting on amendments to the bills from Friday. There were, I believe, 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans doing the suggesting and voting. I found it amusing how when the Republicans brought something up, it would go to vote and sound something like this:

"Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce this amendment..."
"All right, we'll put it to vote. All in favor, aye. (aye) All opposed, nay. (NAY!). Looks like the nays have it."

I just found it interesting how the chairman kept dismissing the Republicans. Then again, they had been there for awhile.

Ok, carry on. :)

Yep, really the health care lobby, IMO, managed to get so much of what they wanted the bill is really useless for most people. I could be wrong, haven't the whole thing, hope I'm wrong.

Also hope this is just a small step in the right direction of getting national health care for all.

No, not "at least it passed." Health care is one of those things where a shitty reform is worse than no reform. This is shitty reform. That's not even counting bullshit like the Stupak amendment, which ensures abortions will continue to be a benefit of being wealthy and yet another way to ensure lower income people remain that way. The freedom (both legal and financial) to choose when you have children is a significant factor in financial success.

If the Democrats had any spine, they'd be arguing for - and voting for - much more significant reform, but they're too afraid of the 22% of citizens who don't want a public option, and the insurance lobbies who provide campaign money. Here's a clue: you don't need quite as much campaign money if you have better things to campaign on.

i notice that they left the prison for defiance part in. you gotta love a government that loves turning its citizens in to criminals or corpses.

I too would like to have seen something different, but I am realistic and pragmatic enough to know what was achievable.

And this bill will help millions of American, both currently insured and uninsured and hold insurance companies more accountable.

Among the best provisions:

For the insured:

end the practice of insurance companies denying coverage to anyone with pre-existing conditions.

prevent insurance companies from raising rates or dropping coverage for those who suddenly face a serious illness.

cap annual out-of-pocket expenses so that no one faces significant unanticipated expenses or goes bankrupt as a result of a medical crisis.

drop all copays for preventive care.

ends any existing lifetime caps on what insurance companies will currently pay.

For the uninsured:

create a new Insurance Exchange with a range of options (and relative costs)

provide affordability credits to help those most in need and tax credits to help small businesses buy insurance on the Exchange

a Public Option (albeit a weak public option) to at least cover the most uninsurable

Holding insurance companies more accountable:

end the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies so that they are no longer shielded from liability for price fixing.

place limits on the administration costs as percent of premiums, thus limiting premium increases.

end the market monopoly in many states, where choices are currently severely restricted, thus opening those markets to increased competition....and increased competition breeds lower costs for consumers.

But the House bill is only the first step.

I dont get the hard line position on the left that no loaf is better than half (or in this case, three quarters) of a loaf.

The prison part is for tax evasion, which has been in place since the founding of our country so I don't understand the uproar from the right on this. You aren't imprisoned if you don't take the insurance, only if you don't pay your taxes.

OpenSecrets | Tracking Your Representatives' Health Care Cash - Capital Eye

Everyone should know how much cash their representatives have pocketed from the health industry (and we wonder why this bill is such crap)

While it's true that this particular bill is only slightly better than week-old bread, I'm still of the mind that half a week-old loaf is better than none at all.

Proposals for a national healthcare system have been kicked around by our people/political leaders for 100 years - this bill is the very first step we've taken in that direction. For that reason alone, it's a dramatic and encouraging accomplishment, and can be considered something solid to build upon. I'm extremely hopeful that our national inertia on this issue has finally been overcome.

I disagree. I don't think the 22% you reference have much impact on how our representatives vote, at all; I think it's all about Big Med/Pharma money and congressional greed.

Thanks for the link, Derwood. It's as informative as it is disheartening. :sad:

Absolutely concur.

This is the kind of trick logic our polititians come up with. We won't put you in jail for not buying insurance but we will tax you if you don't and put you in jail for not paying the tax fine. When the Senate scraps the public option I hope they scrap the fine for not buying insurance as well.

Now would be a very, very good time to start inundating your senators with calls, emails, and letters supporting a strong public option that doesn't have to be "budget neutral" but can actually be the incredible competition against the broken free market system that it should be. Ask for specific things that you want, and don't skimp on the details. Barney Frank said, in a recent interview, that protesting is meaningless: contact your representatives directly in large enough numbers and they will be compelled to listen.

Speaking as someone who has Universal Health Care and truly believes in it, all I can say is it's a start and it's truly a miracle that you got this far.

The problem will now be the Senate, which if I understand it correctly requires 60 senators out of 100 to vote FOR the legislation. This will be next to impossible since many of the Democrat Senators are more like Republicans than Democrats. (They are this way in order to get elected in their state I would guess.)

This will truly be an uphill battle for Obama, however, he is probably better able to twist some arms amoung the Democratic Senators.

Expect more watering down to come frankly.

It's kind of ironic that the debate on the issue of providing health care for its citizens has been as exhausting as it was, but the debate to spend 3 trillion dollars on invading Iraq took a few days.

how long do you think the tax evation penalty has been around? This is nothing new, you are required to have auto insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle, if you are caught driving without it your license is revoked until you can provide proof of insurance. This works the same way, if you want medical treatment you must have insurance, be it privately owned or publicly.

Australia is talking about almost doubling our population from immigration over the next 15 years...

Depends on the representative. The conserva-Dems who were elected in Red states by slim margins are worried about that 22%, because a good chunk of their constituents fall into that group. That said, the various lobbies are certainly the bigger problem over all.

I hope there comes a day when we actually see campaign finance reform to the degree that candidates can't take money from special interests anymore. I won't hold my breath, however

The 8% Loop Hole
 

Question: How long does it take for people to figure out how to exploit the loop holes in the bill? A loop hole that can affect the intent of the bill and alter the assumptions used for costs and coverage.

Answer: Less time than it takes to change a light bulb.

Just for kicks: Let's say we have a Cement contractor (small business), and the guy has about $2,000,000 per year in revenue. He nets about (being generous 25%) $500,000 of personal income and he is single. He runs a payroll of $500,000. He does not offer his employees health insurance and would be subject to the 8% "surcharge"/tax or whatever it is. That amounts to $40,000, right off of his bottom line of $500,000, effectively a tax of 8% of his income.

I am an entrepreneur. I go to him and say; let me set up two employee leasing companies for you. Half your payroll in company A and half in company B and then I lease your employees to you, with a 4% admin charge for me. So I have two companies with a payroll of $250,00 and I lease them to you for $260,000. Oh, and we don't need to offer health insurance or pay the 8% (let them go on the public plan). He saves $20,000 and I make $20,000. He has a 4% advantage over his similarly situated competition who do not do this ( and of course I go to his competition and do the same thing), and the government doesn't get anything, and the employees go on the public plan.

Oh, how I love capitalism, especially when the foolish or short-sighted run Washington.

P.S. - this is not actually a new concept, PEO's took off big time in the California market when Work comp premiums were going through the roof. But this would be a new application.

Why would you not have to offer them Insurance? And why would he hire you if all he has to do is put them on the puclic plan himself?

I think the employees would qualify for the "exchange" aand the employer with payroll over $500,000 would pay the 8% "surcharge" or offer a group plan.

He could set it all up himself, but I am a good salesman.:thumbsup:

For the record I have not read the bill and have no plans of reading it. I am going to wait and see what the Senate does and when they get close to a final version I will look forward to looking at the details. My point is that all the assumptions they used to sell the bill is not based on reality. Including the thought that a person at the "tax the rich" threshold will rollover and pay the tax. Many people will simply defer more income using tax preferred or qualified plans like Keogh's, Simple IRA's, 401(k)'s, annuities, trusts, etc.

Rep. Kucinich and Jane Hamsher explain it far better than I could:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/...with_amendment

This half loaf is not better than no loaf, because it is covered in mold.

I'm very happy that anti-abortion people's tax dollars can't be spent on abortions.

Now I guess my tax dollars won't be spent on illegal wars or Gitmo detainment or extraordinary rendition or warrantless wiretapping or...

I don't like to give a ways the government has been giving away over the past 20 years, especially in the past 5 years. A lot of companies made a lot of money and continue to make a lot of money.

SHOCKING NEWS: Congress rejects health bill amendment that would require them to participate in the public option.

CNSNews.com - Democratic Leadership Would Not Allow Votes on 11 Amendments Requiring Congressmen to Enroll in Gov?t-Run Health Plan

and yet there are many who are quite comfortable attempting to force it upon me. :shakehead: