Anyhow, I wanted to make this post real quick:
Occasionally we will put political stuff up here, and I know that there are people that read our blog who are on both sides of the Health Insurance Reform debate.
Frankly, I haven't seen so much dishonest, scare-tactic B.S. in a long, long time, than I have seen from the extreme Right Wing, than is being spread in regards to this reform.
http://my.barackobama.com/
Go here to get a more clear picture of what's really in this. And yes, this will be the "optimistic" view, but it's really pretty accurate. I have read about 900 pages of the legislation, and skimmed through all of it.
Yes, there are problems. It doesn't do enough to limit insurance companies costs, and federal subsidies will probably be higher than estimates. Yes, the plan will probably cost more than is being estimated.
But there are also parts of this legislation that haven't been reflected in terms of likely cost reduction:
- Reduced administrative costs for healthcare providers by reducing uninsured non-paying patients. If more patients have insurance, they will have a significant reduction in bad debt from patients that can't pay. Simple stuff. Just like any business, the cost you charge for your goods and services has to have enough profit built into it to cover the losses. That means that your Doctor bill, or Hospital bill, has a certain amount that is built into it to cover the expense of non-paying patients. Therefore, your insurance company covers that cost. Guess what? You and your employer, for the majority of us who have employer-based insurance, then end up footing the bill. So for those of you that are complaining that you shouldn't have to pay for someone else? Guess what? YOU ALREADY DO! It's just like any other business. The cost you pay at Wal-Mart covers the loss that they have in stolen merchandise. It's really exactly the same thing. So by reducing this lost revenue and the expense of debt collection, cost will be reduced.
- Preventative Health Care services- The same people that go to the emergency room when they are sick and then can't pay, have basically no access to preventative health care. By having access to this, the average person will be healthier, and make better healthier, decisions. Oh, and by the way, they won't be clogging up the emergency room when they have access to a regular physician! This will drive down cost.
- More patient and Doctor control over your health care decisions- The bottom line is that this legislation has, to a limited degree, taken power away from the insurance companies, and put it back in the hands of physicians and patients. Less limits on coverage. No ability to refuse coverage due to pre-existing conditions. No lifetime caps on payouts. The false information that is making any claims that the government is getting in between you and your Doctor is patently false. The opposite is true.
- Strengthening Medicare/Medicaid- Contrary to what is being said, these programs are not being robbed. And I want to point out that Republicans have been screaming for decades that Medicare needs to be more efficient. That's happening as part of this legislation. But Republicans are trying to claim that Medicare is being raided, when what is really happening is what they have called for for a long time: Making Medicare more cost-efficient!
- Better for small business- The vast majority of small business won't be penalized. If your employer doesn't have at least 30 employees, they are basically exempt from the penalties. It's really only employers with more than that who get hit with a big penalty for not offering health insurance. And if you work for a small business that doesn't offer you health insurance, the federal subsidy will bridge the gap. And that will make it much easier for small businesses that aren't large enough to offer insurance, to be more competitive! Say thank you! BTW it really pisses me off when people complain about this one- if our ENTIRE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS BUILT ON THE CONCEPT OF EMPLOYER-BASED INSURANCE- then shouldn't there be some provision THAT REQUIRES EMPLOYERS TO OFFER INSURANCE??? Seriously, it's really that damn simple!
- It's not going to bankrupt the country. The bottom line is that there are at least 30 countries that do a more efficient, effective job of providing healthcare than the US does. And don't thing that just because it's the US that we're the best. Sometimes we're really not. And we really suck at making sure that everyone has access to healthcare. And we shouldn't.
- It's not going to bankrupt you- Do you make more than $200k per year? Really? That's awesome! Thanks for helping provide healthcare for the single mother that works for the pest control company in your town, that's too small to afford to offer insurance! She really appreciates it! And she also works for a living. Oh, you don't make more than that? You make less than $150k combined? And YOU work for a small company that can't afford to offer Health Insurance? Well, You're welcome! You're healthcare costs just went way down!
Summary: While it's not perfect, (and oh btw why doesn't the republican party help address the costs by working with the Dems on improving the controls?) it's a very solid start.
Comment away! But be reasonable.
10 comments:
April,
I have had no problem paying for health insurance when I made the decision ton NOT have other luxuries (like cable tv, a new car, the newest video game system, etc). Now that I make a decent amount of money, I don't feel like I should have to provide for something that I've been able to provide for myself my whole life. Especially to those that won't get out and work for it, and that's going to happen.
Tony I am glad that you and your family haven't been one of many that would not have been able to get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. That happened to my Mom. She lost her small business because she couldn't get insurance after having cancer. April has a minor heart condition that would probably preclude us from finding insurance if we weren't covered by her employer. Look a little bit beyond your situation. This isn't about people that won't work for it.
I have no problem with changing the rules so that people with pre-existing conditions can gain insurance. I have a problem with paying for insurance for others. I'm already paying for others social security (a government run system that's going broke), medicare (a government run system that's going broke), medicaid (a government run system that's going broke), and welfare (a government run system that keeps getting bigger).
I agree that there are problems with the system, and welfare is a joke and it really doesn't work very well. But the bottom line is that access to affordable healthcare is one thing that all Americans should be guaranteed. And this is a step in that direction. And remember that it was the Bush Administration that increased the size of government, and reduced revenues by cutting taxes on the top 1% income earners, over the past decade...
As a libertarian (yes, not a republican, not a democrat), I think that anything that the government gets involved with is going to fail. Look at the education system. It has continuously posted losing marks since the inception of the Department of Education. It now costs taxpayers more per student to teach a public school system than it does for a family to send a student to a private school. And public schools have a much higher rate of failure. Yes, Bush the II screwed us, taking away civil rights, but Obama is taking away freedom of choice. I speak very highly of freedom, as I spent 14 years defending these freedoms. This healthcare bill reeks of the old Marxist saying "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Tony, I appreciate that you are able to think for yourself. Unfortunately too many people's view is totally based on what others tell them they should believe, and not based on understanding even the basics of the issue. I just disagree that there aren't some things that the government has to do. And remember that this legislation isn't a government takeover. No Socialism here. Insurance companies will still provide payment. Doctors and patients will still (even more so, actually) be making treatment decisions. Freedom of choice is only being taken away from those employers that choose to not offer healtcare benefits-upon which our entire healtcare system is based- to its employees, and from the insurance companies that have been able to choose to limit, restrict, and refuse coverage. How has this limited your freedom to choose? And unless you are making $250k per year, it's not even going to cost you anything. Remember that. There's a better chance that it will actually benefit you than there is that it will cost you a single penny.
It's taking away my freedom of choice by making me pay for other's health insurance. I do that already, and now this is going to add to it. It's taking away my freedom of choice by requiring that I have to purchase health insurance that I may not want. The law specifically states that I have to have a certain standard of coverage. If I don't want that much insurance, it's gonna cost me a penalty. Health care is NOT a right. Your rights are listed in the 1-10th amendment of the US Constitution. I think this is one where we'll have to agree to disagree. (And I understand pre-existing conditions...I'm diabetic. Wanna know how much that costs per year?)
Kudos to you for reading 900 pages of the bill! I'm sure that is way more than half of the legislators have done. It is frustrating that political divisions prevent people from coming to the table and discussing things in a reasonable manner. If liberals and conservatives would put aside their pride and work together, they could make balanced decisions that could make this country great.
Tony-
Do you really think that all our rights have already been decided, and that we haven't evolved as a society?
Amendments? You mean the changes to the Constitution establishing freedoms that, as society evolves, we come to realize should be guaranteed?
Times change, and as a libertarian you shouldn't stand behind the Constitution and its amendments as your definition of our rights. That's the government's definition. And you have made it clear that you see the government as a failure waiting to happen.
I just can't fathom that in this day and age, we can't guarantee basic affordable healthcare to everyone. It's just plain wrong. Think about it. I'm not talking about free money because you don't have (or won't find) work. It's access to a doctor without getting buried in medical expenses.
Mandi-
One of the problems with access to so much information, is that people go to what's easy to find or what they are familiar with. And that's just not always the best source.
And as I am sure you can see from the conversation that Tony and I can have, it's very easy to disagree.
The funny thing is that I have as much, or more respect for Tony, and his opinion, than a lot of people that agree with me, that haven't made any real effort to understand this issue and the new legislation.
Tony and I don't agree, but his opinion is rooted in what he knows and believes, and I bet he knows as much about this as anyone in office.
And that is what I love about America- very different opinions, based in honest, truthful debate, with the value of what this country stands for- freedom and liberty- at the heart of the debate!
Post a Comment