Free Health Care for everyone!

[WD RPG WD]

Now that should be the solution! Remember, Debt is just a number!

The more I listen to C-SPAN, the more I want to shoot kittens. Congress is having a debate about health care and all I hear from Democrats is how great healthcare is and Republicans responding how awful it is. The agenda's are so obvious. If your a republican and you show just a little support to a democratic proposal, you risk not being re-elected or you get harassed by others in your party and vice-versa.

There are good and bad things about this reform bill and wouldn't it be a miracle if both sides would admit this? Surely each party can find a little common ground.

What's more frustrating is many of the things they say are fabricated and usually linear and not specific. Why waste 10 minutes reading a letter from somebody living in your state about how health care reform is going to take away their medicare advantage program because their doctor will no longer accept patients with that program instead of just telling us why this will happen and what can be done to make sure situations like that don't happen (without starting from scratch). Stop wasting time with pointless sad stories and give us some numbers.

These people love making statements like "the costs would be covered by money that was already in the budget that was being misused". How many times have I heard this same vague statement from the government. As much as any bill tries to take money from misused money elsewhere, it creates just as much. And then I hear a republican say "the people don't want increased government involvement in healthcare." Government already pays for huge amounts of healthcare as it is. Is this somthing new? It's just a scare tactic to get people thinking this is another form of control for the Government. Just like 9-11 was an inside job to pass laws that would give Government more control... So much hot air and no substance.

Sorry for the rant. I'm all over the place, I know. I'm a little frustrated with my friends on both sides. We live in a great country. Before we complain, we need to first be grateful that we even have health care.

[Werefrog]

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

[Jenner]

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

Abortions are mandatory for Republicans.

[Silver Phoenix]

*sigh* If only...

[DeathBeforeDenial]

I like your style WD.

It basically comes down to knowing the facts rather than falling for the sugary promises or barbed, yet empty rhetoric.

I'm in a similar position that I don't know what to think of the bill yet. Both sides are so full of crap when it comes to explaining what the reforms are actually going to accomplish and do away with that it's impossible to get a fair and unbiased analysis.

As someone who values personal liberty and freedom over virtually anything when it comes to politics I certainly have my reservations about bureaucratic expansions such as this, but really a lot of the reforms which are touted in the bill are very reasonable and fair in regulating the insurance companies which definitely need to be kept in line.

Ugh, this stuff was so much easier to deal with when none of us knew what was happening. Oh how I long for the benevolent dictator. That's the real way to go.

[Nobiyuki77]

I like your style WD.

It basically comes down to knowing the facts rather than falling for the sugary promises or barbed, yet empty rhetoric.

I'm in a similar position that I don't know what to think of the bill yet. Both sides are so full of crap when it comes to explaining what the reforms are actually going to accomplish and do away with that it's impossible to get a fair and unbiased analysis.

As someone who values personal liberty and freedom over virtually anything when it comes to politics I certainly have my reservations about bureaucratic expansions such as this, but really a lot of the reforms which are touted in the bill are very reasonable and fair in regulating the insurance companies which definitely need to be kept in line.

Ugh, this stuff was so much easier to deal with when none of us knew what was happening. Oh how I long for the benevolent dictator. That's the real way to go.

Um....

Oh, and here's a good summary in plain English.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/23/ ... /?hpt=Sbin

[WD RPG WD]

Well, in all fairness he did say he didn't know what to think.

Nobi, that is a good summery but it still only scratches the surface of all the new changes. The health care law now imposes a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning bed services! I happen to be a tanning bed user and this seems to be a little "random", especially since this originally was supposed to target any company performing cosmedic procedures but somehow ended up just affecting tanning places.

It really isn't a big deal to me but it poses the questions of, "what other random legislation in the name of health care reform will we see next?"

[Werefrog]

The health care law now imposes a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning bed services! I happen to be a tanning bed user and this seems to be a little "random", especially since this originally was supposed to target any company performing cosmedic procedures but somehow ended up just affecting tanning places.

Doesn't seem random to me. Tanning costs the healthcare system a ton of money in the skin cancer it causes. I wish that there would have been more taxes like this. I personally enjoyed the idea of a soda tax.

[Alunissage]

Indeed. Tanning beds are basically on a par with cigarettes for deliberately poisoning your body. Not to mention that even if you don't get skin cancer, you're damaging your skin nevertheless and will likely have far more wrinkles, age spots, etc. Of course, a nonnegligible number of people seek cosmetic surgery to address those, too.

Sorry, George, but it's really not good for you... hence the existence of "self-tanners" (skin dye).

[Solana]

Hmmm, does that mean discounts on healthy things like tea or fitness classes or massages?

If memory serves, I believe that the entire healthcare bill was a good 1000 pages. Any idea is going to have its good and bad points, and naturally those involved will want to use their piece of info to cast one light on the whole thing.

Personally, I'm very grateful for the 'no denying for pre-existing conditions' and hope that the result of a government plan will be to inject a little competition among the private companies and cut down on the crazy high costs. Not sure if that will be the case, (I'm no economist) but here's hoping. I think it'll be a lot cheaper to focus on prevention and trying to keep Americans as healthy as possible to start with.

[DeathBeforeDenial]

Hmmm, does that mean discounts on healthy things like tea or fitness classes or massages?

Honestly that's a big part of the bill I found to be quite lacking. It's all well and good to respond to a problem, but this bill is fundamentally reactionary and does little to encourage good behavior on the part of the individual (at least from what I can see).

Rather than punishing behavior that contributes to the problem (prohibition, lol) they should be encouraging healthy alternatives and providing incentives to engage in those activities and habits. The government ought to be subsidizing healthy foods to make them more affordable than junk food, and they should be opening free gyms across the United States that would provide a tax credit based on the number of hours you log. Or if nothing else provide tax credits to offset the cost of gym memberships. That's the only reason I dropped mine, I loved going to the gym but couldn't afford the extra $50 a month.

Um....

Yes yes, I know. Your attempting to point out the dichotomous nature of my love of personal liberty and the yearning for a benevolent dictator. Fundamentally I believe that individual liberty is of pinnacle concern. For that I am essentially an enlightenment thinker. However as our society creeps closer towards a cluster**** of bureaucratic ineffectiveness I would rather have a single strong, yet fair and moral leader. Since my dream of a society where the liberty and rights of a single person is of utmost importance is a laughable afterthought for many, I support a strong, simple and efficient central government instead.

While many may see that and think "this guy is crazy", a thought I which I absolutely support your right to have, I see it as pragmatic. The power struggle between the Republicans and Democrats does nothing but waste time and sink the country into a bigger ideological penis-measuring contest. All the while trillions more circle the drain in unending foreign interventions and inefficient social welfare programs. If I can't have paradise, I will settle for order.

But enough of that. Just more of my inane ramblings. Feel free to disregard them as lunacy, which by all accounts they are.

[Aaron]

Ha! I think you're the only one who would want a "benevolent" dictator.

I'm just gonna go on record as saying Health Care ended Obama's career. He will not be reelected.

You know what's great about all the summary sites? They're all summarizing different things? NBC has a different list of things. They're similar, but not the same. Truth is nobody knows what the bill does. Not even Pelosi.

"The bigger the government the smaller the people"

The worst part about this bill is all the new taxes & the fact that it doesn't reform things until years later. I don't think Uncle Sam will be strong enough to help me when I'm older. *Shrug*

Enjoy it while it lasts. I'll be first in line

[Werefrog]

Ha! I think you're the only one who would want a "benevolent" dictator.

I'm just gonna go on record as saying Health Care ended Obama's career. He will not be reelected.

Yeah, how dare he follow through on his campaign promise of health care reform! This isn't what we voted for! (Granted, he made a lot of compromises on his original vision, but that's how politics works.)

[Old_School]

My main concern is that the bill had over two-thousand pages and some senators blatantly admit to not having read it all. You're not supposed to sign a contract without reading the fine print, so why would they vote for a bill they haven't even fully read? Also, I don't much care for how people will have to buy insurance or be penalized. Having insurance is a good idea, of course, but since when is it Uncle Sam's job to force people into it? Also, what right does the government have to fine businesses that choose a private insurance company over theirs?

"The government that governs best is that which governs least." Henry David Thoreau's words make more sense to me every day.

[ShindoW]

I don't keep up with politics (I know, shame on me, but I just plain don't understand them) but my teacher made a good point: Why enforce someone to buy insurance? He compared it to car insurance, somehow. I wish I could remember exactly what he said... Like, why should we penalize someone for something that only effects them? I'm not sure if that was it. When I remember, I'll definetly write it down here. XD

As for the soda tax, I get alot of soda. Ive been turning to zero calorie ones (Vault and Coke Zero) so its not as bad, but I actually support the tax on junk.

HOWEVER, healthy food has just got to be cheaper. I eat fast food because its cheap. I can't afford $20 twice a weak for lunch when I can go out and get food for $8 (this is for 2 people, btw) However again, I should be bringing my lunch more, but until I move out and can choose what I want to have to eat without getting a complaint of it being expensive from my Mom, I'll have to settle with excersize. I've been trying to watch what I eat-- its really difficult when your Mom has turned into a crazed vegan and there isn't much in the house.

I hate hate hate to ask, but does anyone have a lowdown of the basics of the healthcare bill? We seem to be discussing it in my class and I'm compeltely lost.

[phyco126]

Forcing people to buy health insurance is basically the same as arresting a homeless person for being homeless. It makes no sense when people just can't afford it.

My health insurance costs me $60 a month, which I'm told is actually pretty good. Great. Except, it doesn't cover the $1200 a month in medicine that I'm supposed to be on. In fact, it only covers up to $400 a year. Nor did it cover my x-rays when I rammed my finger into the pool wall on accident. Nor did it cover the doctor bills when I got sick. Nor does it cover anything else that I do on a medical basis. I'm waaaaaaay past due for an MRI, but thats not gonna happen with this insurance. So what, now I'm legally required to keep it? Because the only other option is private insurance and OMG do you know how much that crap costs?!

[Imperial Knight]

The idea behind the individual mandate, as I understand it, is that it's there to make the ban on discrimination for preexisting conditions work. The idea being that without it too many healthy people would opt out of getting insurance, driving premiums up for everybody else. It's also my understanding that there is a "hardship exemption," where people who cannot obtain affordable insurance are exempt from the fine for not having insurance.

[Kizyr]

Contents:
Ok I'll start with a couple summaries. Here's a very quick overview from CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html
And a more detailed one from Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... ans-to-you

CSM's piece is more tailored to what it means specifically for some individuals, so it's a little more detailed.

The only places saying really contradictory things are ones from places with very obvious conservative agendas (Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, CATO Foundation, Paul Ryan, etc.).

My main concern is that the bill had over two-thousand pages and some senators blatantly admit to not having read it all. You're not supposed to sign a contract without reading the fine print, so why would they vote for a bill they haven't even fully read? Also, I don't much care for how people will have to buy insurance or be penalized. Having insurance is a good idea, of course, but since when is it Uncle Sam's job to force people into it? Also, what right does the government have to fine businesses that choose a private insurance company over theirs?

The constant repetition that the bill is 2000 pages is really disingenuous. Most comprehensive bills have that kind of length. It's because, like computer code, bills have to be written in very specific (legal) language. It's not the kind of thing you can normally read through. (The USA Patriot Act, for example, was 300-pages long. Very few people actually read it; most of it is comprised of legalese anyhow.)

Typically, you have people who are well-versed in legal documents read it (or sections in it), summarize the main contents, and go with that. A lot of other private organizations also scan the bill and summarize it or predict the outcomes, for better or worse depending on the organization's purpose.

One thing that was funny about all of this was how abortion became such a big factor. First, anything in the bill that'd allow federal funds to be used for elective abortion wasn't included. That apparently wasn't enough, so specific language was added in to state exactly that federal funds wouldn't be used for elective abortion. That also apparently wasn't enough, so Obama signed an executive order on Wednesday stating the same thing. Now, you still have some people claiming that the bill would allow federal funds to be used for abortion... So, yeah, if you see that, then it's a clear indication that the source is suspect.

The individual mandate seems to be the most contentious part. I'll get to that in a second.

I don't keep up with politics (I know, shame on me, but I just plain don't understand them) but my teacher made a good point: Why enforce someone to buy insurance? He compared it to car insurance, somehow. I wish I could remember exactly what he said... Like, why should we penalize someone for something that only effects them? I'm not sure if that was it. When I remember, I'll definetly write it down here. XD

Comparing it to car insurance would actually support an individual mandate... Insurance does affect more people than just yourself; it has to do with the nature of insurance and how it operates. To put it simply, insurance is meant to spread risk. So if something happens, you're not responsible for the full cost of it. This works when it's a rare event (fire, auto accidents, expensive illness, etc.) and there's a large number of people for whom it doesn't happen (i.e., not everyone's house is burning down, not everyone gets into an auto accident, not everyone needs to use $10,000 of medical services a year, etc.).

So, the individual cost of insurance (such as your premiums, copayments, deductibles, coinsurance, etc.) is a function both of your own habits, and that of other people in the same risk pool. If you have as many people in the risk pool as possible, and you can expect that they'll be in that risk pool for a long time, then it's possible to bring the overall cost of insurance down for everyone.

The reason why many states have a requirement for auto insurance is because getting into an accident without insurance, if you're unable to pay for the damages, shifts the costs to everyone else. Health insurance has that component, plus the effect of decreasing the cost for everyone when more people are in the system in the first place.

Individual mandates
This seems to be the biggest sticking point. It's a $95 tax that wouldn't take place until 2014. Ideally, the people who are unable to afford that, or insurance itself, would be able to take advantage of a lot of subsidies that are also included in the bill.

The idea behind the individual mandate, as I understand it, is that it's there to make the ban on discrimination for preexisting conditions work. The idea being that without it too many healthy people would opt out of getting insurance, driving premiums up for everybody else. It's also my understanding that there is a "hardship exemption," where people who cannot obtain affordable insurance are exempt from the fine for not having insurance.

The ban on pre-existing condition discrimination (which is my favorite part of the bill, but more on that later) is a slightly separate issue. The idea behind the individual mandate is that it's a way to get younger, healthier people who feel they don't need insurance (cf. exigence in one older thread) in the system. Since (a) when they do end up needing health coverage and can't pay the bills, everyone else suffers from higher costs, and (b) having them in the system to begin with decreases costs for everyone involved.

The most important concept here is adverse selection. What that means is basically if you offer insurance based on a particular risk (e.g., the expected amount that people on average will use in medical expenses), then the insurance plan is more likely to attract people who are more likely to exceed that risk, and is more likely to deter people who are more likely to be below that risk. That ends up driving costs up for insurance overall, and makes it even more unaffordable, often for the people who need it the most.

You're right however that there's a hardship exemption. There's also a religious exemption, and an exemption for Native Americans (many of whom are covered under IHS, but I'm not an expert in that). More importantly, there are some subsidies for poorer individuals, and the insurance exchanges which should be around in a few years (by 2014, again) should also help with that.

Forcing people to buy health insurance is basically the same as arresting a homeless person for being homeless. It makes no sense when people just can't afford it.

See what I was saying above in response to Imperial Knight on a hardship exemption, and subsidies for poorer individuals.

Regulations
So yeah, my favorite aspect of the bill is in the regulations. There are a lot of things that insurance companies are able to pull that really screw up the market--most of those are related to asymmetric/imperfect information (you might've heard me use this term in other posts on the same subject). Basically, an insurance provider knows full-well the value of what they're providing to you: they have control over how much they'll reimburse expenses, whether they'll cover something in the first place, and if you'll be dropped for any reason, or if you'll be accepted in the first place. Meanwhile, the consumer knows very little information--he just has to take it on good faith that his insurance will cover him when he needs it.

This is what leads to some of the worst practices in insurance, like excluding people with "pre-existing conditions" (and I put that in quotation marks since, well, I have "pre-existing conditions" if you ask some insurance companies... my doctor knows that I don't, but hey, insurance actuaries know more about medicine than doctors, am I right?) or dropping people once they get sick (and are more likely to start using the services that they thought they were paying insurance to cover).

The regulation in the bill is a great start to leveling the playing field. The only thing that'll take effect in the near future is the prohibition on excluding children from coverage for pre-existing condition. The same regulation will be applied for adults in a few years--however, I think insurance companies are going to respond early rather than wait until the last minute (as it's in their best interest to have someone insured for as long as possible).

Personally, I'm very grateful for the 'no denying for pre-existing conditions' and hope that the result of a government plan will be to inject a little competition among the private companies and cut down on the crazy high costs. Not sure if that will be the case, (I'm no economist) but here's hoping. I think it'll be a lot cheaper to focus on prevention and trying to keep Americans as healthy as possible to start with.

Cost-control is a bit thing, and there are some things in this bill that'll help there. Some of the barriers to interstate competition should be removed, and getting more people into the system overall will keep costs down. The ultimate thing, though, would be a public option to add pressure to keep the cost of medical services themselves down.

Insurance exchanges and a few related ideas are actually a few of the things incorporated in the bill as a result of Republican plans (Rep. Paul Ryan's "Roadmap" is the only actual Republican proposal I've seen--I think the bill incorporates some of the Roadmap's better ideas, but the Roadmap itself doesn't do anything near enough to help cost-control). KF

[Solana]

The regulation in the bill is a great start to leveling the playing field. The only thing that'll take effect in the near future is the prohibition on excluding children from coverage for pre-existing condition. The same regulation will be applied for adults in a few years--however, I think insurance companies are going to respond early rather than wait until the last minute (as it's in their best interest to have someone insured for as long as possible).

That doesn't kick in for a few years?! Better late than never, I guess. I do hope that you're right on the 'responding early' portion, though. (Trying to search for a new job and insurance to cover for the three month period with fibromyalgia is no easy task, but it will be easier once this kicks in.)

[Kizyr]

That doesn't kick in for a few years?! Better late than never, I guess. I do hope that you're right on the 'responding early' portion, though. (Trying to search for a new job and insurance to cover for the three month period with fibromyalgia is no easy task, but it will be easier once this kicks in.)

It's one of many compromises in the bill. They actually made a lot of compromises so that, in the end, the bill that was passed was actually really moderate. Many things are phased in gradually instead of all-at-once. Honestly, the only thing I think deserves a delay is the insurance mandate and exchanges; everything else really could be kicking in by next year--especially the regulations. Oh well; that's how the legislative process goes.

I still would've rather had a public option. But, as Obama said, that wouldn't've been feasible to have passed through Congress. KF