Slashdot Mirror
House Passes Massive Medical Insurance Bill, 219-212
The votes are in: yesterday evening, after a last-minute compromise over abortion payments, the US House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill effecting major changes in American medical finance. From the BBC's coverage: "The president is expected to sign the House-passed Senate bill as early as Tuesday, after which it will be officially enacted into law. However, it will contain some very unpopular measures that Democratic senators have agreed to amend. The Senate will be able to make the required changes in a separate bill using a procedure known as reconciliation, which allows budget provisions to be approved with 51 votes - rather than the 60 needed to overcome blocking tactics." No Republican voted in favor of the bill; 34 Democrats voted against. As law, the system set forth would extend insurance coverage to an estimated 32 million Americans, impose new taxes on high-income earners as well as provide some tax breaks and subsidies for others, and considerably toughen the regulatory regime under which insurance companies operate. The anticipated insurance regime phases in (starting with children, and expanding to adults in 2014) a requirement that insurance providers accept those with preexisting conditions, and creates a system of fines, expected to be administered by the IRS, for those who fail or refuse to obtain health insurance.
This truly is the best and most accurate description of the actual process I've seen.
I live in Belgium, where we have health insurance and auto insurance and bicycles and none of the problems you imply. My parents live in Spain and also none f those issues. My sister in Germany? No problems there.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
1) There are several hundred billions of dollars that provide subsidies to people too poor to afford health-care, with an explicit rule that a family can not be forced to spend more then a certain % of their income on care (I believe it's 15%, but I don't remember the exact number).
2)The poorest of the poor already receive health care for free in the form of Medicaid, and that Medicaid is being expanded to cover 50% more people
3)People who pay the fine *gets something* for it. They still have the right to receive emergency care for free. Not only that, but they have the ability to purchase insurance if they ever get sick without paying an enormous bankrupcy-causing penalty for having a pre-existing condition.
"And that will - and this is the intent of the "insurance" crooks that drew up the bill - create a market for "Never Pay" cover, i.e. schemes that appear to meet the absolute minimum requirement, but which have such egregious exclusions and excess contributions that you'll never use them. In effect, free money for the insurers."
This is also not true. While there are different types of insurance with different levels of generosity, by law, at least 85% of premiums must be paid out in the form of health-care for any given plan, so "free money" for the insurance company is effectively outlawed..
I recently lived off of food stamps and eat nothing but organic frozen/canned/fresh vegetables, and the occasional choice cut of meat, exactly how I ate/eat without assistance. I rarely spent half of the money given for food.
The health insurance given to me was in a higher league than what I use to pay $410/mo for from Blue Cross Blue Shield. I was able to get some dental fillings done, get my eyes checked, not pay outrageous amounts for random things they did not cover.
this is not true. take a look at this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/votes/house/finalhealthcare/?nav=rss_email/components If you sort by amount of contributions, you will see that health care industry spread its $$$ almost evenly between Dem and Rep. Also, you will see that amount of contributions from healthcare industry does not really correlate with Yes/No vote on HCR.
BULLSHIT
Are you paid to spread this disinformation or are you just a useful idiot?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."
Does not guaranteed healthcare promote the "general welfare" of American citizens?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
But there are provisions that will take place immediately -- things like making sure that young children can't be denied from a new plan due to a pre-existing condition, prohibit dropping people from a plan when they get sick, letting dependents stay on their parents' policies until the age of 26, adding tax credits to small businesses to allow for coverage purchase. It would be pretty easy for Democrats to spin taking those things away as a bad thing.
No HERE is a better summary:
Everyone wants better health care, and everyone wants a law, or series of laws, which in some way addresses the problem.
The dispute comes down to two opposing perspectives on how to fix it.
The Republican conservatives believe that no taxpayer money should be funding abortions. They also think that the principle reason that healthcare doesn't work in this country is because the cost of health care is too high. They believe this is due to too many people trying to get a "free pass" by not having insurance. It's also due, they think, to a serious problem with "impulse" lawsuits which force doctors to buy an incredibly high amount of malpractice insurance. The Republicans also think that there are way too many procedures, both surgical (angioplasty vs. TPA for heart problems) and diagnostic (too often a large, extremely expensive test is conducted for no good reason). Finally, the Republicans think there is no such thing as a single bill that will fix this. What is required is a gradual, step-by-step series of bills, to be written and implemented over a series of years, to ease us into a new era of health care.
The liberal Democrats believe that health care costs too much because insurance companies are massive, bloated corporations who are jacking up the price of their premiums so they can squeeze money out of everybody, and work WAY too hard at getting OUT of paying for claims (such as, "you had cancer before you signed up with us, so you'll have to pay for your own treatment" or "you can't go to this emergency room to treat your heart attack, since we won't cover your visit there. You'll have to go across town instead, and hope you can make it there without dropping dead. Are you feeling lucky today?"). For the Democrats, the government needs to get involved in such a way that reminds HMOs that they are in some cases quite literally selling life, as opposed to soap flakes or cheeseburgers. They also don't care much about abortion, and fear that if we don't pass a single bill now, we'll be relying on future sessions of Congress to take up the issue with the same attention, focus and passion that it's getting now. History shows that Congress has not always been able to do this.
The trouble is, BOTH sides make some VERY good points about what's wrong with health care in this country. What makes Americans like me VERY angry, is that the politicians can't see past their own party lines, which is wrong because we didn't elect them to serve their PARTIES. We elected them to serve the PEOPLE.
Interesting, except one thing.
If you don't make enough money that you have to pay income taxes, you're exempt from the fine. Even then the fine is capped based on your income level.
In other words, the argument of "only if you earn money" argument that you applied to income tax, applies to this fine as well. The idea that you are liable for this fine "the second you become an adult" is incorrect.