In your opinion, does the HCR bill have some beneficial aspects for poor or middle class Americans?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: In your opinion, does the HCR bill have some beneficial aspects for poor or middle class Americans?

For example, the HCR bill expands the number of people who qualify for medicaid, is this beneficial in your opinion?

The HCR bill removes annual and lifetime benefit payouts, is this beneficial in your opinion?

A "No" vote would mean the above two aspects are not beneficial.

A "Yes" vote does not mean the HRC bill contains more good than bad, a "Yes" vote only means the bill has some good aspects.

[FreakinDJ]

1. Sure but what about the Middle Class who has been paying for every thing

all along

all we get is shafted again

[babylonsister]

3. Wow, your compassion is breathtaking. nt

[FreakinDJ]

7. No seriously - I'll be getting taxed on my benefits

Already the middle class pays more then their share of taxes. The Rich don't pay them, the poor can't pay them.

The CBO said the Public Option would have realised a reduction in insurance rates. Currently estimates of increased Hospital Cost to cover Unreimbursed Medical expenses are between 8 - 20% depending on your location. Which equates to several $1000 per year for me.

Haven't I given enough already

[quaker bill]

13. But the point is

that with substantially more people covered, the costs for uncompensated care will drop. I do not know about your insurance, but my policy, which is employer provided, fairly generous, and pretty useful, will still be below the threshold for taxation under the Senate proposal, and the House Bill does not even include a tax. So regardless of how reconciliation goes, I will likely not be looking at a tax. Most folks I know in the private sector do not have insurance expensive enough to fall under the proposed excise tax.

[ananda]

2. It might help some poor people temporarily.

But the middle class people are totally screwed.

[MH1]

4. Totally screwed, in what way?

Most middle class people have "typical" jobs, right? Meaning they have employer based health insurance? From graphs I've seen our overall payments will go down slightly. Without HCR, my premium tripled from last year to this year. Even if it goes up again next year, why should I think that is due to the HCR bill? But even with it going up this year, I still have much better coverage at a much lower price than I'd have if I had to go get it as an individual. Even though it doesn't affect me directly, if this bill makes it easier for more people to have health insurance, I think that's a good thing.

[napi21]

5. All costs SHOULD come down. I know treating std. things like

the flu, bad coughs, ear aches, etc. in the ER is one of highest expenses in HC. If moving a lot of those patients to a DR's office,or clinic, those costs will be reduced for everybody! Add in the mandatory free tests like mamograms etc. diseases can be caught sooner before they become critical will also reduce overall costs, although that will take longer to show a significant savings.

[depakid]

12. How are people with high deductibles and copays going to afford primary care?

[napi21]

14. Why do you think they will only be able to afford high deductible

coverage? I don't think that's true. Everything I've heard states that the low income people will get subsidies to cover all or almost all of their premiums and not only high deductible ins. I've actually read some assements that say they would pay $5.00 a month or maybe nothing.

[bornskeptic]

18. There will be no cost sharing for preventive services

under the Senate Bill(see Section 2713). My current insurance requires only office visit copays for preventive services, which includes so many things that most years my deductible doesn't come into play. With this change, which does apply to group insurance as well as individual insurance, my only out of pocket costs in a normal year would be prescription drug copays.

[nevergiveup]

6. The 10 billion dollars for free health clinics

will likely save lives. Bernie Sanders worked hard for this and it is one of the good aspects of this bill.

[FreakinDJ]

8. Correction - "Sliding Scale"

Yes its good to have the clinics but it is no public option. And what is to prevent the next administration from defunding them the same way Bush Defunded all the VA clinics

[nevergiveup]

11. Geesh! Who said it was equal to a public option?

I was talking about saving lives. Personally I am in favor of single-payer but there are some good things in this bill and not doing anything because the next administration might de-fund them is the poorest excuse of all to not push forward with programs for those struggling today. Hell, we might as well give up on all social programs requiring government funding. You take what you can get when you can get it, keep striving to get more, and then fight the heartless Republicans when they try to de-fund the programs.

[zeemike]

9. It is not really a fair question

Because there is good in a lot of things but you must weigh them with the bad...
I mean after all Hitler created the Auto Baun and the Peoples Car, and no one would say that it was good for some Germans.

[ZombieHorde]

10. "no one would say that it was good for some Germans"

I specifically stated, "A 'Yes' vote does not mean the HRC bill contains more good than bad, a "Yes" vote only means the bill has some good aspects."

My poll is perfectly fair.



Side note...
You may wish to avoid creating analogies between the HCR bill and Nazi Germany.

[ZombieHorde]

15. So far, 24 people do not believe expanding medicaid or removing annual/lifetime benefits is

beneficial.

Pretty interesting.

[Hansel]

17. +1

[TheKentuckian]

16. Slavery had SOME beneficial aspects for poor and middle class people

or at least they perceived it to.

The question is it more beneficial than harmful, and that I can't honestly answer which indicates weak at best policy. I know personally it will make care almost out of reach because after I get done with my share of premiums there won't be a hell of a lot more available to actually pay my share of costs. I suspect I'm not alone.

It is very easy to be pretty broke and way above the poverty line. A single person making 30k is on the hook for about $225 a month or about twice as much as I've ever paid (granted with employer contribution) for 10-15% less value than about every plan I've ever had. When I think about someone trying to tread water on less or with a family to support I have to wonder how much more care people will actually get.

I see why the mandate is so crucial, the last time I had a plan that was similar I dropped it because I couldn't afford it (granted I made about 8k less) and couldn't afford the $65 co pays if I could. Feels like a scam to me to make a person pay out a two or three thousand a year or so for nothing unless something really major happens, in which case I couldn't come up with another 10% of my income for either.