Obama's Health Bill

[boxy]

Finally, they got something passed. It still seems pretty complicated, compared to the Australian system. Basing a public health care system on private enterprise?

And now it's supposed to be unconstitutional? How so?

It is a big fucking deal though a step in the right direction. This is what governments are supposed to be for, caring for all their citizens.

[Hebe]

Tell the Repugs that.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/818738-bara ... are-reform

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

Selfish people. And did you see that madwoman on the news yelling to a crowd "Kill the Bill"?

[annielaurie]

It still seems pretty complicated, compared to the Australian system. Basing a public health care system on private enterprise?

Yes, it's too complicated and will cause all kinds of problems.

This healthcare bill is not what it seems. I'm a Democrat and voted for Obama, but here are some important points that show why we should be wary of this bill,

Tues, Mar 23, 2010

Think the Democrats just scored one for the Little Guy? Think again!

By Robert E. Prasch
Professor of Economics
Middlebury College

(excerpt)

By design, costs are not contained, neither is health care reformed. This means that "affordability" does not come from controlling costs, but by shifting them. Shift to whom?

(excerpt)

So, get this, as your income declines and your house is repossessed, the cost of your health care rises with higher premiums AND lower subsidies. But, make no mistake, even as the subsidies decline, the mandate will stay!

(excerpt)

I also wish to warn against the 'NPR version' of the story that this bill "gives" health care for those without. Nothing is given, it is a MANDATE. Now, while the original 'vision' of the bill had subsidies, these are fading rapidly. So, now we have a dramatically underfunded mandate. Solving the lack of insurance by mandating the poor to buy it is, to be blunt, Dickensian. Obama himself stated it very well during the campaign "It is like solving homelessness with a mandate that those living on the streets buy a house"..

(excerpt)

So, now the Democrats have taken it upon themselves to decide the priorities of millions of our poorest citizens. Thus, thanks to the Democrats, non-negotiable required fees from the insurance industry will be several multiples of the current income taxes of the lowest paid ..

(excerpt)

Sorry about bringing the bad news. But this bill is a disaster, and it is worse than nothing, as it will destroy the incomes of those it purports to help along with the Democratic Party. It is especially bad since a public option was always an option ..

http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/

[AiA in Atlanta]

I lived in Japan for many years and I prefer that system over the Australian system and certainly prefer it over the expensive American system. Sure, the Japanese system isn't always as plush with amenities as the American system but it is quite effective, not perfect, effective. It is a market-based, reasonably priced, universal health care system. Back in the mid-1990's both Taiwan and Israel implemented new health care systems, something the Americans just can't do. Here there Birthers, Truthers, Deathers, Wingnuts and more blocking every attempt at change.

[Senexx]

The beauty is now that there is something in place or rather will be.

It can be amended, the flaws ironed out bit by bit as time goes by.

[annielaurie]

No, the bill is so muddled that it would have been better to scrap it and start over.

Keep it simple.

A government-run public option for low income individuals and families.
Laws to prohibit insurance companies from refusing clients for pre-existing conditions.
Laws to prohibit insurance companies from dropping clients when they get sick.
No mandate to purchase insurance for those who choose not to be covered.
No changes or cuts to Medicare for seniors and disabled folks.

These things were all that were needed. Then go from there if more is needed later.

[Senexx]

No, the bill is so muddled that it would have been better to scrap it and start over.

You are better placed to comment than I, however to scrap it and start over would only lead to inaction, followed by more inaction, followed by more inaction. There would never ever be anything in place.

Now there is, it can be fixed as time goes by.

That's my only real disagreement.

[boxy]

Laws to prohibit insurance companies from refusing clients for pre-existing conditions.

I don't see how this is a good idea? Surely you can't expect a company to willingly accept to cover the costs of something that is already know, with the knowledge that there is no way they can recoup the expenses from premiums.

Does the Japanese system require people to take out private health insurance, AiA? Or how does it work?

[AiA in Atlanta]

Laws to prohibit insurance companies from refusing clients for pre-existing conditions.

I don't see how this is a good idea? Surely you can't expect a company to willingly accept to cover the costs of something that is already know, with the knowledge that there is no way they can recoup the expenses from premiums.

Does the Japanese system require people to take out private health insurance, AiA? Or how does it work?

No, one isn't required to take out private health insurance in Japan but many, including myself, have a supplemental policy with a private provider.

One of the problems in the States is that when someone falls out of the health care system because of a job loss and/or a pre-existing condition he is shit-out-of-luck.