I'm sure not all of them are calling it "Socialist", irrespective of what they mean by that term.
I wonder how many people have read that 2000 page pile of compromise and corruption?
What about the "Reconciliation Bill" though? That hasn't left the Senate yet, has it?
I'm sure most people haven't read it. And it is a compromise. Otherwise NOTHING would get done. The bill is hugely imperfect, it doesn't go far enough. I think the biggest value in it might be the momentum that it can feed. And if that momentum isn't followed, it will be an enormous disaster.
I think I heard that the reconciliation bill would likely pass... it needed 51 votes.
Re: American health care bill, a good thing or a bad thing?
If you look at some of the immediate individual improvements, it's hard to argue against any of them:
Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.
*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.
*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.
*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.
Regardless, it HAS to be paid for!! I am happy that the bill passed, but I am a bit sceptical of the $980 billion pricetag.
I know it's probably tangential to the point of this Off Topic thread, but I can think of a few $trillion that have been worse spent by the government of "The Land Of The Free" recently.
This user would like to thank BeastOfBodmin for this useful post:
If you look at some of the immediate individual improvements, it's hard to argue against any of them:
Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.
*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.
*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.
*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.
Is healthcare a "right" for the American people? America was founded
under the Puritan principle of "If you don't work, you don't eat."
Regardless, it HAS to be paid for!! I am happy that the bill passed, but I am a bit sceptical of the $980 billion pricetag.
That so-called "puritan principle" is not actually a principle itself, but only an adage about laziness and hard work. When it is used to dissuade from taking care of the widows and orphans, the adage is being perverted.
I would much rather use that money for THIS noble purpose than to give to bankers or squander in a war or two.
The following 3 users would like to thank for this useful post:
Alll the talk about being "able to keep your own healthcare" is drivel. The politicians were already out today talking about the public option. Many are on record as saying this is just a first step - the end game is to have only a public option.
I don't see how having a public option keeps people from keeping their current insurance.
But if you mean it will put private insurance out of business, I say good riddance. In Switzerland they're forced to operate under strict regulation and it works great. I love this quote from an article I read:
"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell admitted that "private insurance will not be able to compete with a government option." This is a little like complaining that Keanu Reeves was robbed of an Oscar just because he can't act."
The following 6 users would like to thank Russkov for this useful post:
Re: American health care bill, a good thing or a bad thing?
Oh and I forgot to mention that President Obama has said on numerous occasions that premiums will go down by $2,500 - it really boggles the mind that anybody would believe that with costs so high now for those that are covered that he will be able to cover more people for less.
But what about the poor illegal immigrants who are not allowed to get healthcare even if they can afford it.
I used to work in a hospital. I can tell you that illegal immigrants do get health care. You can't deny care to someone in an ER. If an illegal immigrant would walk into a doctor's office with cash, that person would be treated, I would imagine.
I know it's a contentious issue, and public opinion can be debated. As for Rasmussen, I do not like how he fudges his data. For example:
Re: American health care bill, a good thing or a bad thing?
I'm American & I totally agree with this new health care bill. As do the majority of my friends and family. It is a right for a basic education and health care. To tell the truth, I have been afraid to return home because of the crap health care system in the States. Being Diabetic, I would find it near to impossible to get on an insurance policy because of my preexisting condition.
The following 5 users would like to thank staceyswiss for this useful post:
Oh and I forgot to mention that President Obama has said on numerous occasions that premiums will go down by $2,500 - it really boggles the mind that anybody would believe that with costs so high now for those that are covered that he will be able to cover more people for less.
The math doesn't work.
Costs are high because the current system is highly inefficient and one could also more correctly say that current costs aren't high, it's the fees that are high. The USofA has the most expensive medical system in the world; why anyone other than the big health providers and people in their pocket wouldn't want to change it ...
There's no problem with the math.
The following 6 users would like to thank HashBrown for this useful post:
But what about the poor illegal immigrants who are not allowed to get healthcare even if they can afford it.
I agree. That's inhumane.
Still, just because the current bill couldn't achieve everything it doesn't mean it's not a huge improvement, even in terms of coverage, let alone delivery.
The following 2 users would like to thank Gastro Gnome for this useful post:
Re: American health care bill, a good thing or a bad thing?
Quote:
I'm sure most people haven't read it. And it is a compromise. Otherwise NOTHING would get done. The bill is hugely imperfect, it doesn't go far enough. I think the biggest value in it might be the momentum that it can feed. And if that momentum isn't followed, it will be an enormous disaster.
I wonder if it would have got through 12 months from now, when the effects of the Supreme Court ruling, rejecting caps on corporate spending, was made?
Quote:
I think I heard that the reconciliation bill would likely pass... it needed 51 votes.
Good. As you said, something needs to be done. I wonder if the bill will curtail any of the sharp, though legal, practices employed by some of the US health "care" insurance industry?
I don't see how having a public option keeps people from keeping their current insurance.
But if you mean it will put private insurance out of business, I say good riddance. In Switzerland they're forced to operate under strict regulation and it works great. I love this quote from an article I read:
"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell admitted that "private insurance will not be able to compete with a government option." This is a little like complaining that Keanu Reeves was robbed of an Oscar just because he can't act."
It works great in the US also but you have to purchase a plan.
The point I believe that McConnell is making is that the government has unlimited money - tax money.
Oh and I forgot to mention that President Obama has said on numerous occasions that premiums will go down by $2,500 - it really boggles the mind that anybody would believe that with costs so high now for those that are covered that he will be able to cover more people for less.
The math doesn't work.
I have seen computations where over time, costs will go down. It's not immediate - I think it might be over 10 years, and most of the bill won't take effect for another 4.
Most people against this reform just hear "socialism, socialism, socialism!" in their minds and haven't actually bothered to find out what the reform consists of. They're brainwashed, what they believe has turned idelogical and any empathy is gone. Remember when Morgannon said that he believed that critically ill people who didn't have insurance should be left out on the street to die?
This is what happens when people like that are faced with reality:
This user would like to thank NicM for this useful post:
Re: American health care bill, a good thing or a bad thing?
I love how selectively Republicans in America apply the "we can't afford it!" excuse. They certainly have no problem writing a blank check to the two wars the government is running. Why is it when the issue is actually HELPING people that they start counting the pennies.
The following 5 users would like to thank Russkov for this useful post:
But what about the poor illegal immigrants who are not allowed to get healthcare even if they can afford it.
They do receive health care. They use our Emergency Rooms like a doctor's office. We have a law that no hospital can turn away somebody seeking care under threat of closure. It's part of the reason why the hospitals along the border in the southwest are closing, not being paid for services.
... I would find it near to impossible to get on an insurance policy because of my preexisting condition.
Yeah, what's the point of health care insurance if you can't get/use it when you need it. In other words, the current system is simply a money grab by the parties involved. Good to see it will finally change.
Re: American health care bill, a good thing or a bad thing?
A large faction of the Republicans are mainly concerned about the protection of private wealth, hence the "Socialist" label. So they get an ignorant throng up in arms over an issue they don't understand through fear tactics. Sadly, few of these own any of the wealth. As in most things in the US, it's all about the money.
Every major legislation goes through hotly contested debates that span many months. This gives ample time for the wealthy to shift their business interests away from a lost cause. I don't think it will put insurance companies out of business, at least not honest ones. It might simply change their game plans.
Linear Mode
