gets in the way of an honest discussion of this. It may well be that caring people could have well-meaning reservations or see some good or bad in this regardless of the true believers on the extremes of either side. That the Repubs in office don't like it is a given. They are like Mikey - they don't like anything. Cruising the news tells you their strategy - it doesn't matter what the subject is - is to slow, impede, and stop anything proposed by Democrats. I don't think they believe they can be hurt whether it passes or not (and it doesn't seem like their feet are being held to the fire) so they seem to think it is in their best interest to continue. Democrats, progressives, and others are generally for it, though there are some serious reservations by people (like me) that it gives too much power and money to insurance cos which will help them fight off attempts to change it in the future by not offering real competition. Some seem to be of the opinion that it should pass just because it helps them politically, and would hurt Democrats if it doesn't, regardless of who the bill helps or hurts.
Take a look at this:
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:UNHGo about midway down the page and change column with shows stock prices for all the stocks over time
from d - day to y - year. Look at what happened to the prices about the time the public option was beginning to be talked
against by Democrats - the stockholders of the insurance cos realized they were getting another 300 billion dollars dropped in their laps. Given that the owners of insurance cos are major stockholders, as are lots of pension plans, it does not appear
that the insurance cos are all that unhappy about the legislation in its current form. Despite the public perception. About the time the public option began to fade we quit hearing quite so much about staffers from Repub offices showing up at gatherings to shout people down, and the noise began to fall off about how the health insurance cos were funding these gatherings, the stock began to rise and has, for the most part, stayed there.
This bill in its current form offers no competition to our existing structure. It does force the insurance cos to adopt some policies that have led to their worst abuses, but it also allows them a lot of leeway to charge for it or even dump seriously ill people by paying a relatively small fine, compared to their profits. Some people have suggested that since a nonprofit is one of the options that it will offer competition - they do not realize that the insurance cos make a ton of money before profits are every considered, and a little look through Google on the current rate hikes by Blue Cross Blue Shield might suggest that they are not, in fact, a kinder, gentler option. Without a public option there is nothing that will weaken the hold the insurance cos have on health coverage in this country.
A fact that isn't brought out frequently a lot is that they only make about 5% profit today. But about 20% or more of every health care dollar is taken out under administrative expenses, sometimes by denying payment for health care, before the profit figure.
Who, specifically, is this going to help? There is a suggestion of some amorphous 25 million people, but very little substance that identifies their profile. There should be several million people helped, but I doubt that it is as high as claimed. For the most part they will be individuals who make over $25-30,000 a year, and families who make over about $60K. Most others won't have enough disposable income to be covered under anything but a group policy provided by their work, which used to be 60-80% of the population in the United States, before real unemployment was around 20% Individuals with with pre-existing conditions have often been denied coverage, and this bill does not help with that until 2014 for adults. It does help within 90 days for children from what I have read. But group plans are already required by ERISA laws to accept people with pre-existing conditions, so this may not be much of a benefit for them. There are thousands of small businesses who do not or cannot offer health care because of the cost, and this may have some impact on that, assuming one can afford the premiums. 3 million people are homeless, scores of millions of people have so little disposable income that they likely can't afford the premium if they are not covered at work. (Raise a couple kids on $30,000 a year and see what you have left). There is little to nothing in this that will ensure they will be covered, and there is a lot of leeway for insurance cos to keep their premiums and costs high. (For example, people in their mid-50's may be charged 3 times what someone younger is - even though they have worked all their life to build the commons that everyone uses). There may or may not be some new language that further restricts or marginalizes women who need reproductive care that may include abortion, adding back in a stigma that we have been trying to get rid of since the 60's.
If you don't have the money there is a provision which may let you opt out, as well as for religious reasons, some others. That does not get you covered, just lets you opt out. So tens of millions of people are still going to have to rely on emergency rooms and community clinics (community clinics are going to be expanded under this by some measure).
Here is a fact sheet -
http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/03/mythfactshcr-2.pdfSome people don't like the source, but that doesn't change the facts on the page.
That said - please feel free to correct any factual information I am incorrect on. This is still in flux, so it is somewhat difficult to nail down every factual point. How you feel about those facts is up to you ;)
You can read here:
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfmand here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_ActDoes that give you another take?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(89 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
