Healthcare Reform Thread II

[Imran Siddiqui]

Frankly, everyone should be opposing this bill.

I'm all for universal health care. This bill is a steaming pile of **** that does absolutely nothing to get us to universal health care, or to control the escalating costs.

Well mandates will get us closer to universal health care. Anyways, Guy. If you want to strike it down now, that's fine. That just means we'll never get universal health care in the US in our lifetimes most likely.

[Jon Miller]

I don't see how this is a meaningful step towards universal health care in the US in our lifetimes.

JM

[Guynemer]

The bill is a complete turd sandwich.

It does not cover everyone.

It does not control costs.

Therefore, it does nothing to effect change in the two biggest failings of our health care system.

[Ramo]

It insures 31 million people, dramatically improves care for those outside the group market, and it begins to control long term costs in a number of ways (chiefly the excise tax, the Medicare comission, and dozens of pilot programs). And this'll be the only chance to pass this kind of legislation in years.

[Drake Tungsten]

Michigan > Nebraska...

Stupak aims to sink 'unacceptable' abortion compromise

An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D. Mich.) coordinated opposition to the Senate health bill’s abortion compromise this morning with the Republican Senate leadership, according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO.

Stupak, in an interview with POLITICO, called the Senate’s bill’s abortion position "unacceptable" – but disavowed his staffer’s collaboration with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“I never talked to McConnell about the health care bill,” said Stupak, adding that that “I did not authorize the email [which] “was sent without my knowledge.”

Stupak said that he has discussed the Senate’s abortion position with conservative Democratic senators Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Robert Casey (Penn.).

Stupak's continued opposition to the Senate plan, despite those conversations and intense pressure from the White House, suggests that reconciling it with the House bill may prove politically challenging.

The Senate language represented “a dramatic shift in federal policy,” said Stupak, adding that he remained hopeful that the differences could be resolved in conference. Nelson, though, said earlier Saturday that his support for the legislation was contingent on the abortion compromise remaining in it.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30811.html

[Ramo]

We're not going to get a better bill unless the Dems have the balls to end the filibuster, and we all know that's not going to happen. They couldn't even stomach reconciliation.

[MrFun]

The bill is a complete turd sandwich.

It does not cover everyone.

It does not control costs.

Therefore, it does nothing to effect change in the two biggest failings of our health care system.

It may not cover everyone, but it will cover millions more people who are currently not covered.

[Drake Tungsten]

It may not cover everyone, but it will cover millions more people who are currently not covered.

Yes, it covers them by forcing them to buy into the our ****ty current insurance system. Great job.

[Guynemer]

Jesus Christ, you people are making me agree with Drake on a political issue. **** you all!

[Drake Tungsten]

The latest version of the Senate bill holds little appeal for progressives. As I noted on the blog, without a public option, this bill becomes a wet, sloppy kiss to the insurance industry. It doesn't even represent a substantial triumph for liberalism by significantly expanding government through taxing the wealthy; there are large new subsidies, but for the most part the subsidies are paid for by gouging Medicare and taxing union health benefits. It really reads like a bill a moderate Republican would propose; it is a slightly stronger version of RomneyCare at this point. In other words, the only remaining group that might have even arguably been excited to vote for Democrats on this bill is now at best lukewarm on it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/19/the_health_care_bill_is_political_suicide_99590.html

In case anyone isn't aware, RomneyCare was a failure.

[Ramo]

There’s no disputing that the reforms have expanded coverage. During a period in which the proportion of Americans without health insurance has remained stuck at more than 15 percent, the proportion of Massachusetts residents without coverage has fallen dramatically, to below 3 percent, according to official figures. That is by far the lowest percentage of any state.

Of course, coverage by itself is meaningless if it doesn’t translate into more access to medical care or less financial hardship because of medical bills. And there is evidence, mostly anecdotal, that some people are really struggling under the new scheme, either because it’s tough to pay the insurance premiums or because, even with coverage, their medical bills are a burden. But the overall picture looks encouraging. According to a study that two Urban Institute researchers published this spring, the number of working-age adults reporting that they skipped care because of high costs fell from 17 percent to 11 percent in the first two years after the law took effect. The gap was even more dramatic among those eligible for subsidized insurance through the Connector--that is, people making less than three times the poverty line, or around $66,000 per year for a family of four. Among those people, the proportion skipping care because of cost fell from 27 percent to 17 percent. And that’s despite a rough leveling-off in the second year, most likely due to the fact that the recession meant lots of people were out of work and counting their pennies. When the economy rebounds, the number should decline even more.



Still, there is the problem of overall cost. The new rules for the individual insurance market have brought down premiums for people buying coverage on their own, which is no small feat. But the Massachusetts reforms haven’t brought down prices on the whole. In fact, premiums for people who get insurance through employers are rising a tad faster than they are in the country at large. If costs continue to skyrocket, the state’s health care reforms will become unsustainable, requiring either large cuts or tax increases.

Then again, until recently, Massachusetts hadn’t seriously tried to reduce costs. The goal was simply to expand coverage and, perhaps, deal with costs later--which seems to be what’s happening now. In July, a special task force recommended far-reaching changes in the way insurance pays for medical care, by, for example, paying physicians an annual fee per patient rather than a fee for every additional service. For years, experts have said such reforms could save money. But these arguments are only now getting political traction, and many in Massachusetts credit the reforms. As this argument goes, the new system, by giving the state a greater stake in health care costs, has focused public attention on the problem and provided the government with more leverage to solve it. The left also seems more invested in the cost issue now, if only because it recognizes that controlling costs is necessary to sustain the recent coverage expansions.

http://www.tnr.com/article/health-care/mass-appeal?page=0,1

And of course, RomneyCare had nothing like the gradual elimination of the employer tax exclusion (indexing the cap to the CPI), the Medicare commission, comparative effectiveness research, or various the pilot programs to collect data on more aggressive cost control schemes.

It is a moderate Republican - Bob Dole, John Chafee - plan, but that beats the far right status quo.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, this will not end up like RomneyCare because of the laughable cost-controlling measures that won't actually be implemented and wouldn't make a significant difference even if they were.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jesus Christ, you people are making me agree with Drake on a political issue. **** you all!

And you are making me agree with Ramo

(but not the stupid reconciliation argument... the problem with reconciliation is that it can't allow for horse trading, meaning it may even be more difficult to pass, in addition to the temporary nature of reconciliation bills, etc).

[SlowwHand]

It may not cover everyone, but it will cover millions more people who are currently not covered.

I'm going to use your quote and mean it to include a few people.

It was brought up to take steps towards an answer, in addition to Mr. Fun's observation.
If this is truly the way to go, why not do it right? Measure twice, cut once.
So what if it doesn't happen next year? It's open to study. Do it right.
Doing it right, in part, means including everyone uniformly. Why leave more people behind in something else so important?

[DinoDoc]

That just means we'll never get universal health care in the US in our lifetimes most likely.

Pass this abortion of a bill or something horrible will happen was the same arguement used for the stimulus and look how that turned out.