Lets be clear, we did NOT get health care reform we got health insurance reform....

[Joe the Liberal]

and they are two totally different things. I remember a few months back the debate subtly changed from being "health care reform" to "health insurance reform" almost over night. Health care reform would be a public option or single payer, health insurance reform is just adding a few new rules and regulations to the existing system of health insurance. In other words there is no new system created like a public option or single payer instead we get just a few small changes to the existing system of insurance.

What is sad is that we will not get health care REFORM for a very long time or ever for that matter because the whole country thinks it already happened with the insurance bill that just got passed. What's even more sad is that the tiny crumb this bill gives us is celebrated as though it is something huge. If anything this bill only shows how broken everything in Washington really is. A bill that has a few changes here and there gets passed and everyone celebrates as though we just won a World War or have been the first to land on the moon.

To call this bill "Health care REFORM" is laughable because it is the furthest thing from it. The US will continue to fall further and further behind the rest of the industrialized world much more than it already has if all we can ever hope to pass is one or two bills that just put a band-aid on major problems that need way more attention.

[Oregone]

1. Furthermore, can people stop using the term "universal health care"?

:)

[zipplewrath]

4. Might as well

This bill, when designed by Baker/Dole, was specifically designed to prevent universal care.

[Prism]

10. I'm already encountering sadness

I have an acquaintance with a pre-existing who thinks this bill is universal health care. He thinks his medical bills (seriously staggering) will be all taken care of because he'll have the insurance. He thinks the entire reform is some kind of magic.

I just didn't have it in me to correct him. He'll find out.

The politicians are dishonestly spinning it this way on purpose and it's just disgusting.

[zipplewrath]

14. I had taken to asking if they had checked carefully.

Many had not. They have some bad news coming. It will help, but in many cases it won't be enough. There are something like 24 million people that won't get insurance from this bill. 1/3 of them are non-citizens. The rest are the "through the cracks" folks. I will admit, those people will be the ones who will slowly get into the system over the years, either by inflation, job losses, or modifying legislation.

[Prism]

15. 2014 is going to be a mess

It'll be interesting to watch as the full truth of the bill dawns on people. The bad has been so downplayed and delayed and the positives so over-polished and moved forward that a serious misimpression has been created. All by design.

But by then, I won't be furious. I'll be too depressed watching all these people struggle because of what my party has done to them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. And the blowback on the dems who are touting this as 'reform'

will be tremendous, once the people find out.

[Echo In Light]

11. +1 (makes the RWer "socialism" claim enormously ill-fitted)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Is health care a problem?

I always thought the problem was with how people paid for health care.

[Oregone]

6. Only if you can't access it because you can't afford copays and deductibles...

with your new fancy, shiny universal health insurance plan!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. That correct....

It's about access. If you have the money (or the money to buy insurance), our health care system is quite good. If you lack the money to pay for care or to pay for insurance, we might as well have no system at all. And you could well argue that for those people on the outside looking in, we really DON'T have a healthcare system in this country.

[zipplewrath]

9. Yes

Several problems

1) Co-pays
2) Deductibles
3) Access
4) Availability.

The last two are the toughest. Not all providers accept all insurance. The first two often make using an insurance policy difficult if not impossible. #4 is a problem in many more rural areas, especially "reproductive care".

The CHC's are suppose to address 3 and 4 somewhat, although not everyone is eligible to use them. And it isn't clear they are put where they are most needed as much as where they will be most used.

[LWolf]

27. Or how they didn't get care because they couldn't afford to pay,

even when they were insured.

[quinnox]

3. sadly true

If America never does the right thing and removes the profit from health care, it will be a disaster given enough time passing and the country will eventually go bankrupt IMHO.

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. And even calling it "insurance reform" is a stretch.

a minor band aid on a gaping wound, that's the reality of it. And it's not even a fair trade off for the obscene increase in the already obscene profits to the industry which will result from corporate mandates.

[LostInAnomie]

8. Meaningless argument over semantics.

Health care was never the issue and wasn't in need of reform. People's access to health care was the issue. Even with single payer and the PO it would have only been insurance reform.

[zipplewrath]

13. Um, not by a long stretch

Universal health CARE is the goal. And health care delivery in this country is a joke. We pay the most and get the worst results. Health CARE delivery needs to be extensively modfied in this country. Heck, much of the long term savings anticipated in this bill come from modifying the methods of health CARE delivery. (Although no one knows right now what those will be).

[LostInAnomie]

17. Yes, by a long stretch.

Health care in this country is not a joke. If it was the rich from all over the world wouldn't come here to get treatment. The system of access we had was the joke. We paid the most because we had hospitals were offsetting the cost of the uninsured by jacking up prices. We had bad results because the system we had caused people to wait until their illnesses were so severe they were forced to receive treatment.

No matter which system you were looking at (PO, single payer, HCR), the changes to actual care would have close to non-existent. It was always about access.

[zipplewrath]

18. The rich don't all come here

People go get treatment all over the world. There are various treatments that folks get here. But the vast majority of our system is a joke. We have higher rates of all manner of problems, even for people WITH health insurance.

The entire point of single payer is to change the way health CARE is delivered in this country.

[LostInAnomie]

20. Single payer wouldn't have changed how care was delivered.

Neither would the PO. They would have changed access to care. The passage of a single payer bill would not have been a rewriting of the procedures doctors and nurses use to treat patients, or the technologies and medicines used to treat patients. All it would have done is insure that patients all have access to proper medical care.

The high rates of "all manner of problems" isn't necessarily a reflection of our health care system, it's more of a reflection of our lifestyle.

[zipplewrath]

21. It is the whole point of single payer

Look how health care is delivered in any country that has single payer. It is COMPLETELY different. It is an HMO on a total level. It gives total cost control to the government, as well as the power to define the methods of delivery. It's the whole point of single payer.

[Oregone]

26. It has greater implications than access

And yes, if implemented as normal, its largest impact would have prevented economic rationing (which this one will not do) and guaranteed actual care.

Beyond that, it would have paid out lower rates probably (perhaps suppressing doctor to patient ratios) and created huge incentives toward more affordable care.

For example, where I live, the public plan does not cover circumcision that I am aware of. Only 10% of infants choose to have this procedure done. It does not cover certain types of fiberglass hard casts, so people will choose soft casts.

By lowering rates and expanding access, market forces change care delivery. If a plan only covers 3 ways to fix a heart valve, fewer people will choose the 4th one they must pay out of pocket for.

They also promote curing an illness above treating one, which is HUGE philosophically and in practice (cheaper for the system)

And centrally they can tinker with programs and funding for desired output. A local hospital I went to was given an $100 incentive for each patient processed within a certain time period. It is tough to do that kinda tinkering on the delivery end with 50 different private insurance pools.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Chances are, this won't sink in.

Even though the White House regularly refers to the bill as health insurance reform, rank & file dems refuse to see it for what it is.

[Prism]

24. Only rarely, though

During the big official things, you'll hear health insurance reform, but during stumps and interviews, the politicians and the President regularly call it health care reform. I notice it because it irks the hell out of me every time they do it.

I know I might come in for some major heat for this, but I also didn't care for the dishonesty of the sentimentality either. The note on Kennedy's grave and his wife's statement. "We finished the job. Ted's dream is a reality." Oh, no it isn't. He wanted Universal Health Care. This bill is so very far from that. I understand the great feeling behind the words and the admiration for the man and the great desire to see his greatest work come to fruition. I liked and admired Ted Kennedy and I hope we may yet see his hopes come to pass. But it just struck me as untrue and unfair to intimate that "We did it!" when this bill falls so, so short of UHC. It left a sour taste in my mouth because it seemed just a little bit manipulative.

[alc]

16. and maybe not even that.

Depending on what we find out about loopholes, deductibles, co-pays, premiums, etc, it may be that all we got is health insurance mandates.

For the person who said we don't need health care reform: Hospitals have reasons (other than profit) to charge $100 for an aspirin and $5000 for an overnight stay. There are reforms that can reduce those costs. There are also reforms that can reduce drug costs. It doesn't matter if the payments are coming from our pockets, insurers, or single-payer, the costs need to come down.

[zipplewrath]

19. Way down

This bill addresses predominately the cost of health INSURANCE. But that cost will still continue to climb if the underlying cost of health CARE isn't gotten under control. This bill stands in the way or real, significant, methods of reducing the cost of health care. We gave away a huge tool in preventing drug price negotiations.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. And the "80% of premiums must go to health care" is itself inflationary,

because to profit from that (other than arbitrarily high premiums which government subsidies will make up the difference on) they must encourage the inflating of health care costs - more unnecessary procedures, more redundant diagnoses, more lab tests... Every extra bit of 'health care' added to the bill increases insurance industry profits because it justifies higher premiums. There is no competition with the insurance cartel to pull down costs, and require the eliminating of excess procedures.

The higher the health care costs, the more the insurance companies can justify raising premiums.

[Toasterlad]

25. WHO CARES???? YAY OBAMA!!!!!!1! WE WON!!!! WE WON!!!!1!!!