Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing?

[joeycola]

concur with Angell. Read the entire article for some enlightenment.



Marcia Angell, M.D.

Physician, Author, Senior Lecturer, Harvard Medical School
Posted: November 8, 2009 08:02 PM

Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing?


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/is-the-house-health-care_b_350190.html&cp



.............Is the House bill better than nothing? I don't think so. It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right..................

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Clearly, she thinks haivng 40,000 people die a year becaue they have no health insurance is better.

I, on the other hand, feel attempting to save the lives of 40,000 people a year is better than nothing.

[vaberella]

2. Kucinich is that you? Go away.

This health care is better than nothing and something, the Republican bill which is equivalent to your choice, the writer's choice, and Kucinich's choice.

[quantass]

3. It's passage (despite its CLEAR lack of true reform) is a Win-Win in the long term...

Yes i agree it is a lousy bill and i woudlnt be surprised it does more harm than good but there in lies its benefit. Its failure will give those proof that this faux healthcare reform didnt work and then....well, then what do they just say lets go back to the old way and continue to do nothing? No! This will make those get serious (finally) and stop beating around the bush and go single payer once and for all. This dilly dallying is stupid and a waste of time. Yes in the short term there will be large bonuses and wealthier insurance companies, and many dead that will pave the roads from Washington to these corporations but it will make more crystal clear the flaw in the system and ultimately the pitchforks will come out by the people....Washington and the WH is to blame, not the corporations...the corporations are doing what they should be doing: Making money by any means necessary. It is Washington and the WH that isn't doing their job.

But hey, i might be wrong....and this gimmick of a bill will go well (likely with significant ammendments). I certainly hope it will because America desperately needs REAL change. I understand America works only by baby steps and so for me, although not surprised (but still a bit disappointed that nothing changes), i would have voted for this bill even with the appalling anti-choice ammendment....I hate to do it but with the corrupted environment this is probably the best you will get...that is, unless true camp. finance reform is done.

So if the bill fails it will make the people finally get less lazy and understand the real crooks in this (their political leaders) and demand true change (single payer) or this bill will succeed (godamn miracle if u ask me) and America will be all kumbiya.

[vaberella]

8. Check some of this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8742991&mesg_id=8742991

[EndElectoral]

4. I have to agree with poster. This is simply a bad bill. My major reason is outlined below:

It essentially gives the illusion of health care reform while simply strengthening controls for private insurance. Eliminating pre-existing condition and rescission insurance practices is laudable, BUT there are no controls for "HOW" insurance companies will implement this, and no real public option for people to turn to as an alternative.

So WHAT will happen? Insurance companies will simply PASS on the costs of being mandated to add "high-risk" people to the rolls by increasing premiums. They will either do it via (A) a higher premium class for "high-risk" people who are non-profitable, OR (B) they will increase premiums across the board on all. They will NOT drop "high-risk" from the rolls, they will simply price them out of insurance. I can see the following scenario. A person with pre-existing condition of cancer sees their premium skyrocket. They are not dropped from the rolls, but the person cannot afford the coverage. They vountarily drop the insurance on their own due to cost, and receive a fee for not maintaining coverage with a company. No one has satisfactorily addressed this scenario in the current House bill.

[vaberella]

9. Check out this thread:

I posted it above but it bears repeating because it seems no one is commenting or looking too much at it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8742991&mesg_id=8742991

[joeycola]

10. The WH and Congress is building a corrupt quicksand from the

beginning. Simple as that.

[backscatter712]

5. Yes, it is very-much better than nothing.

It does have a public option. Not as good as I would like, but it does have one. It has the subsidies that help lower-income people afford coverage. It has the bans on pre-existing conditions clauses, rescissions and other insurance company abuses. And it gets about 3/4 of the uninsured in this country covered.

It's not a perfect bill, but it will be very helpful. Don't let the Beltway sausage-making process turn you off from it - there's still a huge amount of good in this bill.

[stray cat]

6. That is the real question DUers and all need to determine

[stray cat]

7. I wonder what those without health insurance due to pre-exisiting conditions think?

[Jennicut]

11. I have a pre-existing condition and do have a group insurance plan through my husband

But I wanted this and the Senate bill to pass because of the changes in law regarding pre-existing conditions. If I lose that insurance through my husband, we would barely be able to pay Cobra with two kids (one of which has asthma). Buying our own plan (which might be more affordable) would be near impossible, I don't think many would cover me as I have diabetes. I could see where some would want to take the issues with pre-existing conditions and pass only that but right now there are no plans to do that.
I live in constant fear that if my husband loses his job, I am screwed. I couldn't afford all my medication, it simply is too expensive. I have no idea what I would do...I guess ration the medication.
To me, this bill IS better then nothing.

[vaberella]

12. We... LOVE IT!!! It's not perfect but we get covered. Link to my story below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8741458

My sister is included. Pelosi added another provision that allows kids to go on their parents plan until they are 27. I was on my dad's plan until I was 21, then they kicked me off. By the time they changed it to 23, I was 24 (it was my dad's company due to Union pressure that changed it) so it was too late for me. My sister was able to stay on until 23, she's 24 now. But with this bill passage in present form, my sister can go back on my mum or dad's plan. Which is great. Shes' working in her dream job, but because she's part time they won't give her insurance and it's a non-profit. So she doesn't want to leave and the economy is shit so she's hoping they'll offer her something. She' been with them for 3 years now and she's moved up the ladder a lot. But still not full time. She has my preexisting condition and she can't get insurance, nor does her job pay her enough to sustain insurance but she makes too much to get medicaid. The PO will give her insurance and she can stay at her job and pre-existing condition is not a problem. So we're hopeful this passes.


This is also an interesting thread to read:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8742991&mesg_id=8742991