NYTimes Health Care article: What the hc reform will probably look like

[TayTay]

A consensus is starting to emerge on what the final bill will look like. It is about 75-80% of what we wanted. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/health/policy/01health.html?_r=1&hp">Read it and see what is in it, what was left out and how likely this is to pass.

Health Bill Clears Hurdle, and Hints at Consensus

By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: July 31, 2009

WASHINGTON — House members headed home on Friday, leaving behind the outlines of a nearly $1 trillion health care overhaul that is sure to draw fire from a variety of interests, but also shows the beginnings of a consensus that would provide insurance for more Americans and give them new rights in dealing with insurers.

As a final act before recessing until September, one crucial panel, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, approved landmark health legislation that could ultimately lead to coverage for about 95 percent of Americans and create a new government-run insurance program.

The 31-to-28 vote occurred at 9:05 p.m. Friday, at the end of a session that began at 10 a.m. Five Democrats joined all 23 Republicans on the panel in voting no.

Congress still has plenty of work to do in September to blend competing, sometimes contradictory health measures, but lawmakers have found a good deal of common ground on proposals that would profoundly change the health system.

Lawmakers of both parties agree on the need to rein in private insurance companies by banning underwriting practices that have prevented millions of Americans from obtaining affordable insurance. Insurers would, for example, have to accept all applicants and could not charge higher premiums because of a person’s medical history or current illness. All insurers would have to offer a minimum package of benefits, to be defined by the federal government, and nearly all Americans would be required to have insurance.

snip

Lawmakers also agree on the need to provide federal subsidies to help make insurance affordable for people with modest incomes. For poor people, Medicaid eligibility would be expanded.

More at the http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/health/policy/01health.html?_r=1&hp">New York Times site

[beachmom]

1. I like it. That is huge. We need regulation of the private health care industry.

I think that is the main area where I am in conflict with liberal activists. They want to focus on the public option and think it will cure all ills, which is simply NOT true. I am fine with a public option, but I want to make sure those of us with private insurance don't get screwed the way we have been screwed in the past. This is really about regulation, just like we want to regulate banks. I guess this articulates for me, why the public option mantra has annoyed me, and states other equally important aspects of health care reform.

God, I hope we get this.

[TayTay]

2. The public option is a failsafe and a lever for controlling costs

I do get that and I applaud the goal. But the goal is to get affordable health care to all Americans. This legislation is not perfect and it has not yet been through the legislative process. But the things in there are not sell-outs, they are well worth fighting for as goals.

Maybe it's me, but this is what I had in mind last year for change in America. Hey, Yes We Can substantially reform and improve our health care payment and delivery system. This is a damn good start. (But it doesn't end there.)

[sandnsea]

3. 12% of gross income is too high

I'm still not clear on that, but if they are expecting moderate income families to pay 12% of their income before the subsidies kick in, that is going to kill this reform. If they require moderate families to pay 12% of the premium before assistance kicks in, that will work. My biggest concern is on what they deem affordable and how that will work for families where the mother is already making a financial sacrifice to stay home with the kids.

[Blaukraut]

4. I also wonder if they will make regional allowances

For instance, 80k annual gross income (the cutoff for subsidies, if I understood correctly) in Massachusetts is not equal to 80k annual gross income in, say, Oklahoma. I know for a fact that we could not afford 12% of our annual gross income for health insurance. Thankfully we already have Tricare and plan on keeping it.

[sandnsea]

5. One of them had regional allowances

I don't remember if it was the House bill or the HELP bill and the exact verbage. If it's set through the state gateways, that would help. That's the only positive thing I can see about having a different system in each state. I would think they could do it like they do with food stamps.