What do(n't) you like about the healthcare reform bill?
 

So, now that the healthcare reform bill has passed the house, let's hear it. What don't you like about the bill? Please, please, stick to facts about the actual bill...not the process, not conspiracy theories...the bill.

Here's what I don't like:

o Personal mandate. I'm just not entirely comfortable with this. I know about the subsidies for people who truly can't afford it, and I understand the why - but I really wish healthcare reform could have been achieved without the personal mandate.

o Not single payer or some other 'socialist' system. It freaking works for the rest of the industrialized world.

o Not even 'public option', but I'm not so sure that the public option would've been such a great idea after all.

Here's what I do like:

o Gets most Americans covered.

o Bans some of the nastier insurance company practices.

o Some fixes for medicare and medicaid

o Various other goodies, like encouraging preventative care, etc.

It's not what it could have been had the proper people been properly motivated. President Obama is a smart man, but he's not a bold man. I fear his decision to begin the compromise with an already compromised position, that of the public option, all but ensured that we would not have any major reforms. I've read every incarnation of the bill that's been released to the public. The bill being passed could be worse, but there are so many areas in which it could be better, I don't know that I can list them all.

Things I don't like: align with robot_parade, at least in the broad strokes. While it probably was unreasonable to expect single-payer, I didn't feel it was unreasonable to expect a public option until the Democrats started opening their mouths and the GOP completely went off the deep end. The mandate scares the shit out of me. A mandate without a public option means higher risk pools in the private market, something that's causing problems already without forcing people into them. The public option along with the mandate made sense because the public option existed without high risk being a factor.

I'm very happy that the bill at least seeks to present the illusion of stopping irresponsible practices in the market. It's not the changes that matter, it's the illusion that the government is regulating the market. Over the next few years, as the US does not become a communist state, the nay-sayers will be forced to dine upon their venomous words. The free market can be regulated without it leading to some imaginary nightmare. And if these reforms help one person in real life, at least it will have helped at all. It's better than nothing.

I haven't been following this at all. Can someone explain what "public option" or "personal mandate" mean?

those words by themselves mean nothing to me.

mandating insurance without having a public option just seems like a total failure to me.

public option was an idea where the government would act as the insurance agent for those who did not want/could not afford private insurance.

the personal mandate is a new law that says that everyone in the US must have health insurance of some kind or else face an additional income tax

I agree, and I believe many people will be insisting on one in the near future.

I'm hoping the outrage over the mandate will result in either the public option or single payer. I have no fear that this will be repealed, so that seems like the next logical step forward

So I'm missing something, how does this cover anyone if there is no public option to get it?

how would one use it?

A few ways:

medicaid access was extended, it used to be that only those with income at the federal poverty line or below could qualify, and now it was extended to 133% of the federal poverty line or below.

Young people can stay on their parents' insurance until 26.

Significant tax breaks and subsidies for individuals to spend on health insurance, as well as tax breaks for small business to provide them.

And finally, the creation of the so called insurance exchange, where people and small business can pool together to negotiate a lower rate.

---------- Post added at 09:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 AM ----------

By the way, here's a decent summary:

Health care reform bill 101: what the bill means to you / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Sounds decent enough, now can you tell me why my conservative friends are quoting hitler and marx on my facebook feed because the bill passed?

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” Adolf Hitler

"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."
Karl Marx

are these people just brain damaged or what?

It's the wrong bill. The Dems passed this in a way that was a pure power grab with backroom deals and BS. The only windfalls will be for the insurance companies. If you say "we'll better the bill in reconciliation" you've already admitted that you KNOW you passed a bad bill.

They didn't take their time and truly find the best bill possible. To me that shows they cared nothing about true reform or getting people covered, it was all about POWER.

They didn't look into a true public option and seeing if they could make it work. They didn't even consider a sliding scale fee with a maximum lifetime out of pocket (which I advocate). They ramrodded something EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM KNEW was the wrong bill. And it is quite obvious by the way they passed it.

As you can see, there is a lot of misinformation out there on the bill. There was a case to be made against this bill, but the republicans chose to go the "make absurd claims" route. That created the interesting case where in polls where individuals were asked explicitly about provisions in the plan, they overwhelmingly supported it, but when they were asked simply if they support the current bill, support would be 50/50.

As much as this bill in being touted as something revolutionary, it is actually mostly subsidies for some and tax increases for others, with some new insurance regulations. It is not national health care, government run health care, or anything like that. The rage will subsidy once people realize that their lives didn't change that much, if at all.

---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 AM ----------


Other than the "no public option" part, what specific parts of the bill don't you like? Let's not turn this thread into another vent and rant thread without factual information.

What specifically do you have a problem with in this bill?

the fact that over 32 million people will now have coverage?
the fact that pre-ex's will be covered?
the fact that life time maximum pay outs are gone?
the fact that you can keep what you have if you like it or get something new?
the fact that it is budget nuetral?
what is it you don't like?

The whole "no denying coverage for those with preexisting conditions" is something I really like. I have a family member who would have been denied coverage if his health insurance hadn't been COBRA'd for the next two years. For people with serious, chronic conditions who do not qualify as disabled, this is huge.

You can say what you want, but the TRUEST FACT IS that even THEY don't like what they passed because they keep saying "we'll make it better in "reconciliation". Call it a rant call it what you like, but when the very people who voted to pass it had to be bribed and exempt themselves to do so.... it's not a good bill.

How are we going to "subsidize" people when we are broke?

You're going to add 17,000 IRS people to enforce this bill?

You never made the bill public, allowed no true debate and passed it in a way that is questionably unconstitutional?

But it's a good bill?

Come on, be real.

What I like: No public option
What I don't like:
People who have self induced pre existing conditions get coverage without any requirement for personal responsibility
The mandate that everyone must have insurance coverage or be fined
Subsidies that come out of the taxpayer pocket for people who are not disabled and whose income falls below some threshold.
Government's intrusion into yet another segment of private enterprise and the resulting expansion in the size of government.

Bottom line is this bill does absolutely nothing for me and requires me to pay for other's insurance coverage.

This bill has been debated for over a year, it can't even hypothetically be considered unconstitutional.

Stop throwing out republican talking points and answer what specific things don't you like in the bill.

---------- Post added at 01:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:39 PM ----------

The insurance you have now(assuming you have it) is paying for others insurance coverage already.

Again, what exactly is the problem with this bill? Do we really need another thread of emotional rants without specifics? How can you be against subsidies because of the cost and for a public option despite the cost?

I don't envy the president in this situation.
The house is polarized to ridiculous extremes that it's like fighting tooth and nail to get anything passed. However. this is hardly rageworthy.

From reading the breakdown of it that dippin posted, it reads off like car insurance, and it reads off that basically if you make under 44k per individual then it will be subsidized anyway?

It's not exactly what I envision when people use the words "public health care" when all it seems to be is "go get insurance, job or not, so we can drive the costs down" much like car insurance.

For some of the things that people are mentioning online about this bill, either that breakdown left out a lot of things, or people are misinformed.

That said, I can't call this "public health care" until there is a "public option"

am I off base in saying that?

Unless you make more than $200,000 or have a very expensive health care plan, you are not paying for anyone's insurance.

How about if I go with the only thing I do like. No pre-existing. And that won't even start until 2014.

It'll eventually divide the insurance between very basic care and premium care, thus dividing the classes by who can afford what.

Say what you want.... but when the very people passing it don't like it, saying they will fix it in reconciliation, they didn't truly debate it they made promises, backroom deals and so on to get enough votes to pass it AND they exempt themselves.....it's a slam dunk the bill is bad.

Reconciliation isn't about not liking it and has been used in virtually every health care bill in this country.

Every bill has to "fix" the difference between the house version and the senate version, this one just used the "reconciliation" procedure to do it to avoid a filibuster in the senate. It has nothing to do with how much the people who actually voted for it like it.

And one would think that this is the most perfect bill ever, given how hard it is for anyone to actually make a case against it based on what is on it.

It is specially puzzling when someone complains that this bill doesn't go far enough in providing benefits or a public option while complaining about the cost of what is being provided. I mean, sure, it'd be lovely if we had full coverage for everything for free forever, but that is not reality.

what i don't like about the bill: no public option. i do not understand how it is that access to basic health care is not a fundamental human right. it is understood that way in the rest of the industrialized world. only in the backwater of the united states is there a Problem with it.



last year 3.47 BILLION dollars were spent on lobbying congress. on health care, 1725 entities registered as being active in this area. initial numbers for outlay on this should be available 20 april. which brings me to the other thing i don't like about this bill: the nihilist strategy adopted by the ultra-right. the overwhelming role that corporate money has played in the disinformation campaign that has people like pan convinced that exactly the opposite of what's in the bill is in fact the case. persuading the gullible of this is expensive it seems.




what i like about it: the subsidizing of basic health care insurance for those who cannot afford it.
the extension of the definition of child to 26 as a recognition of a shitty job climate that's unlikely to change any time soon.
elimination of pre-existing condition restrictions.

Serious question to anyone here: Where does the Constitution grant authority to Congress to require every person to purchase a particular thing?

The bill doesn't officially require anyone to purchase insurance, it only taxes those who don't. Might sound the same, but the constitution actually allows for selective taxes like that.

I pay taxes, so at least in the case where the receipts from people earning over $200K or payments from those with expensive health plans (which doesn't kick in until something like 2018) fail to cover the expense of the subsidies I most definitely will be paying for them. I don't expect Obama to announce that the insurance plan is out of money, so no more subsidies.

---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

The insurance premiums I pay today go into an insurance pool. The other employees also pay their own money into the insurance pool. That pool pays for each person's medical expenses plus insurance plan expenses. So no, I am not paying for someone else's premiums. They pay the 'buy in cost' to the insurance plan

That could be the case, but right now the projections are that it will reduce the deficit, not increase it. The projections might be wrong, but even if they are this program will be far from adding significantly to the deficit, and depending on you income even then you'd be better off given the new deductions related to healthcare spending.

I think it does have a sliding scale premium schedule for those with incomes below 400% of the federal poverty level and an annual out of pocket limit.

Forcing insurance companies to cover people with pre existing conditions sounds kind of like buying fire insurance for your house as it's burning imo. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work...

Also, how is the tab for this group of people going to be picked up? It sounds like those of us already struggling to get by are going to be picking up much of it.

I think rahl was referring to the fact that everyone currently insured or paying for healthcare are paying for the uninsured via higher prices charged by hospitals, etc.. and therefore higher premiums charged by insurance companies.

---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 PM ----------

As I understand it one of the major ways we will be paying for it is by forcing everyone to buy insurance and expanding the pool.

the elimination of the pre-existing condition restrictions is a step toward shifting the whole way of understanding what insurance does away from the interests of insurance companies--which really should not be for-profit, but whatever---to the idea that access to basic health care is a fundamental human right. so it moves insurance away from being able to put profit maximizing over the interests of the insured. it's like that.

We will have to disagree on all points. I was hoping someone could say "Article X, Section Y, Clause Z".

[quote=flstf;2770585]I think rahl was referring to the fact that everyone currently insured or paying for healthcare are paying for the uninsured via higher prices charged by hospitals, etc.. and therefore higher premiums charged by insurance companies.
QUOTE]

Yes, that was exactly what I was talking about.

---------- Post added at 02:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------

So you are going off on an emotional tirade and can't name a single thing wrong with the bill itself?

---------- Post added at 02:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------

Where does it prohibit them?

What makes health case a special human right? Even more important is food, and possibly utilities, and I've not read of any plans Obama has to interfere with the grocery business or the utility companies

Well, if someone has food poisoning they won't be eating any food, and if they don't get treated they will likely dehydrate and die. If people have to choose between paying for their medical bills, because they can't get insurance, and paying the utilities I would think you'd want to fix the underlying problem so they can get back to payinf for said utilities.

Fixing healthcare would let people get healthy affordably and be able to buy groceries and pay utilities.

The 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It is on this basis that I am fairly hopeful that a Constitutional challenge to this law will be successful and the whole of the legislation shall be thrown out. 10 States have already drafted their challenge and are simply waiting for Obama to sign it so that they can file. Due to the magnitude of the legislation, it will most likely be fast-tracked through the courts and reach SCOTUS within a few weeks.

Taxing is well within the powers of congress. This suit will almost certainly not make it to the appelate level

remember when Ronald Reagan said that Medicare would mean the end of America as we know it? was pan his speech writer?

I guess we will all see.

The biggest problem is that there is no reason to believe the cost of services will go down. Second biggest is that it disincentivizes medical professionals, which may reduce supply while increasing demand.

I had my own ideas for improving access and lowering costs but no one ever listens to me.