US National Healthcare Bill

Knavish

Senior member
May 17, 2002
910
3
81
While I'm sure this thread will quickly turn into a political debate (or maybe just get ignored), I'm just curious what is actually *in* the bill.

My impression of national healthcare, when it was first proposed, was a government controlled / run public insurance plan. Now they're saying the public option has been cut out. What does the bill actually propose to do??

Are there any sites that list bullet points of what is in the bill?

----------
Updated a 3rd time after reading posts...
So are these the main points?
#1 You have to buy health insurance, or pay a fine.

#2 ? Health insurance companies cannot refuse to give you insurance ?

#3 ? Heath insurance rates will go up because they have to cover people who are currently refused insurance, but the increase might be offset because more healthy people will sign up too ?

--> so far, how is this costing the government anything? Perhaps this next point is in the bill:

#4 ? Government is paying insurance for people who can't afford it & who are not currently covered ?
 
Last edited:

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Government is going to mandate people buy private insurance without giving them other options should insurance companies decide to use this new mandate to rip them off.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
What was intended to make Health Care affordable for all has turned into a make Health Care accessible to all and penalize those that to not do what the government wants along with those that have a decent health care system.

Note that the need to control the costs has gone away :thumbsdown:
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Government is going to mandate people buy private insurance without giving them other options should insurance companies decide to use this new mandate to rip them off.
So you mean the government is going to mandate that everybody pays for an expensive product/service from one of only a few players in the industry, an industry that in recent years has seen huge annual increases in premiums, far out-pacing inflation?
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
While I'm sure this thread will quickly turn into a political debate (or maybe just get ignored), I'm just curious what is actually *in* the bill.

My impression of national healthcare, when it was first proposed, was a government controlled / run public insurance plan. Now they're saying the public option has been cut out. What does the bill actually propose to do??

Are there any sites that list bullet points of what is in the bill?

Many sites that have bullet points only show how the legislation directly effects the health care industry but fail to point out the billions of dollars of pork and pet projects hidden within the legislation.

Hidden in the ~2000 pages of this legislation there are countless gems that the media chooses to ignore and have nothing to do with health insurance reform.

If the Democrats wanted to get this done, they would craft legislation for each specific bullet point, with ZERO pork, and have an up or down vote on each specific issue.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,701
52,515
136
Even though the first two posts have been good examples of partisan stupidity, (good job guys!) I'll give it a shot.

The basic principle of the bill from the beginning was never to create a public insurance company, it was always a means to an end. (much to my sadness) The basic idea behind this bill was to expand coverage to all or nearly all Americans, to enable people who could not get insurance due to various conditions to do so, to reduce the costs of the medical industry and to improve the quality of insurance/care.

A large portion of the bill more strictly regulates the insurance industry, preventing them from dumping people once they get sick, from excluding people for pre-existing conditions, and in general trying to limit some of the worst practices in the industry. It looks like the bill is pretty good in this regard.

This bill will cause a large reduction in the amount of uninsured Americans, and so it has met that goal reasonably well too.

The one area where it will not do so well is long term cost control. As far as I can tell this bill will likely lead to a net increase in total health care spending. Take this as partisan or not, but most of the ideas that were shown by the CBO as effective cost reducing items (like the public option) were removed due to objections by moderate Democrats, and universally opposed by conservatives.

So the bill accomplishes most of the goals set out for it, but it does not accomplish them all. Luckily more incremental reforms to the system will be easier to pass in the future and so hopefully this can be used as a stepping stone to further improve the system. It's nowhere close to what I want (which is a single payer system), but it's still certainly a massive improvement over what we have.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
To quote IL Dem Senator Dick Durbin "I would say to the senator from Arizona that I'm in the dark almost as much as he is. And I'm in the leadership."

What chance do the rest of us have at understanding what's going on?
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Even though the first two posts have been good examples of partisan stupidity, (good job guys!) I'll give it a shot.

Lets check out eskimospy "shot"

The basic principle of the bill from the beginning was never to create a public insurance company, it was always a means to an end. (much to my sadness) The basic idea behind this bill was to expand coverage to all or nearly all Americans, to enable people who could not get insurance due to various conditions to do so, to reduce the costs of the medical industry and to improve the quality of insurance/care.

A large portion of the bill more strictly regulates the insurance industry, preventing them from dumping people once they get sick, from excluding people for pre-existing conditions, and in general trying to limit some of the worst practices in the industry. It looks like the bill is pretty good in this regard.

This bill will cause a large reduction in the amount of uninsured Americans, and so it has met that goal reasonably well too.

The one area where it will not do so well is long term cost control. As far as I can tell this bill will likely lead to a net increase in total health care spending. Take this as partisan or not, but most of the ideas that were shown by the CBO as effective cost reducing items (like the public option) were removed due to objections by moderate Democrats, and universally opposed by conservatives.

So the bill accomplishes most of the goals set out for it, but it does not accomplish them all. Luckily more incremental reforms to the system will be easier to pass in the future and so hopefully this can be used as a stepping stone to further improve the system. It's nowhere close to what I want (which is a single payer system), but it's still certainly a massive improvement over what we have.

Shoot miss.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,701
52,515
136
Many sites that have bullet points only show how the legislation directly effects the health care industry but fail to point out the billions of dollars of pork and pet projects hidden within the legislation.

Hidden in the ~2000 pages of this legislation there are countless gems that the media chooses to ignore and have nothing to do with health insurance reform.

If the Democrats wanted to get this done, they would craft legislation for each specific bullet point, with ZERO pork, and have an up or down vote on each specific issue.

That would be the dumbest way to legislate imaginable, and it is something that literally no one in the industry wants. The health care industry is heavily interconnected and individual proposals frequently influence one another. What happens if you pass the new regulations on the insurance industry to accept greater risk pools but then fail to pass the part to mandate coverage? Disaster.

You should probably stop posting about how you think the government should function, it's embarassing.
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
even though the first two posts have been good examples of partisan stupidity, (good job guys!) i'll give it a shot.

The basic principle of the bill from the beginning was never to create a public insurance company, it was always a means to an end. (much to my sadness) the basic idea behind this bill was to expand coverage to all or nearly all americans, to enable people who could not get insurance due to various conditions to do so, to reduce the costs of the medical industry and to improve the quality of insurance/care.

A large portion of the bill more strictly regulates the insurance industry, preventing them from dumping people once they get sick, from excluding people for pre-existing conditions, and in general trying to limit some of the worst practices in the industry. It looks like the bill is pretty good in this regard.

This bill will cause a large reduction in the amount of uninsured americans, and so it has met that goal reasonably well too.

The one area where it will not do so well is long term cost control. As far as i can tell this bill will likely lead to a net increase in total health care spending. Take this as partisan or not, but most of the ideas that were shown by the cbo as effective cost reducing items (like the public option) were removed due to objections by moderate democrats, and universally opposed by conservatives.

So the bill accomplishes most of the goals set out for it, but it does not accomplish them all. Luckily more incremental reforms to the system will be easier to pass in the future and so hopefully this can be used as a stepping stone to further improve the system. It's nowhere close to what i want (which is a single payer system), but it's still certainly a massive improvement over what we have.

qft
 

Knavish

Senior member
May 17, 2002
910
3
81
While I'm sure this thread will quickly turn into a political debate (or maybe just get ignored), I'm just curious what is actually *in* the bill.

My impression of national healthcare, when it was first proposed, was a government controlled / run public insurance plan. Now they're saying the public option has been cut out. What does the bill actually propose to do??

Are there any sites that list bullet points of what is in the bill?

----------
Update:
So are these the main points?
#1 You have to buy health insurance, or pay a fine.
?? #2 Health insurance companies cannot refuse to give you insurance ??
?? ... #3 seems like they'd have to regulate insurance rates, or you'd get people who are "required" to buy insurance at any price the companies set.

Oh well, looks like this is turning into a political debate :)
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
What was intended to make Health Care affordable for all has turned into a make Health Care accessible to all and penalize those that to not do what the government wants along with those that have a decent health care system.

Note that the need to control the costs has gone away :thumbsdown:

You're not the only one who has picked up on this frequently moving target.

It's turned into a lobbyist's wet dream.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
That would be the dumbest way to legislate imaginable, and it is something that literally no one in the industry wants. The health care industry is heavily interconnected and individual proposals frequently influence one another. What happens if you pass the new regulations on the insurance industry to accept greater risk pools but then fail to pass the part to mandate coverage? Disaster.

The government will not be able to mandate coverage to being with but nice try.

Instead of actually passing the sections that people want, like deregulation allowing competition across state lines, nothing gets passed because the legislation is collapsing under its own bull shit.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,933
11,417
136
Mandating people through fines or jail terms to enrich for profit companies is patently unconstitutional in my book.

I'm a progressive, I'm advising my congressman, and senators to kill this POS.

By the way F.... Lieberman!
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Right now the GOP, DINO's ,Big Pharma, and the Insurance monopolies are winning.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
You're not the only one who has picked up on this frequently moving target.

It's turned into a lobbyist's wet dream.

Yeah....

The sad part is, one thing that keeps getting proposed is that we should either tax all benefits or those above a certain level (yeah, you're already aware, just saying ;)). The government is telling me my benefits are too good.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Basically we can all know if this is good for us or not based on how the corporate lobbyists for the insurance companies are pushing. Are they pushing for or against this? The opposite is what's best for the rest of us.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Thats the rub. No one really knows whats in the bill. Its not a matter of passing something thats on point or good or bad. Its simply a matter of passing SOMETHING that will allow the expansion of government.
 

sciwizam

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,953
0
0
Well, we might not have gotten into this situation if the promised unprecedented level of transparency and the CSPAN live telecast of all the closed door deals and meetings actually materialized.

Mandating people through fines or jail terms to enrich for profit companies is patently unconstitutional in my book.

I'm a progressive, I'm advising my congressman, and senators to kill this POS.

By the way F.... Lieberman!

Not so soon: White House as helpless victim on healthcare :|
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Oh well, looks like this is turning into a political debate :)

The process this administration has taken on this issue, there is no way to view this without the political fighting!

If you want to know what is in the bill, you either have to go to (1) a far-left site which bullet points all the intended goals of the bill, or (2) a far-right site which bullet points all the taxes and all the expansion of government. Everyone in between is clueless.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Thats the rub. No one really knows whats in the bill. Its not a matter of passing something thats on point or good or bad. Its simply a matter of passing SOMETHING that will allow the expansion of government.

It wouldn't have been that way if progressive Dems had to throw almost every piece of meaningful reform under the bus to woo over a few conservadems and (I think I am going to through up here) Lieberman.
 
Last edited:

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
The fact is that no one knows what the "health care/health insurance/government takeover of health care" legislation is or what the final language will be.

Like most legislation, it is a hodgepodge of special interest language, political bandaging and convoluted reasoning, most of which is specifically designed to NOT deliver needed reforms.

Whatever you think it aims to do, be assured it will not do that. No matter what it is called, it will not make health care more affordable, more accessible or more efficient. It will likely throw existing systems into chaos at significantly more cost than we pay now.

It is a cauldron of dissatisfaction for both the radical left that represents the Democrat Party, the Republicans that want to study the issues ever long and the fiscal conservatives that look on the Obama/Pelosi/Reid cabal with such abhorrence.

It is a game where you lose from the very start.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30648.html

...“The Senate version is not worth passing,” former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told POLITICO, referring to plans to strip the latest compromise from the bill, a Medicare buy-in. “I think in this particular iteration, this is the end of the road for reform.”

Dean said there are some good elements in the bill, but lawmakers should pull the plug and revisit the issue in Obama’s second term, unless Democrats are willing to shortcut a GOP filibuster. “No one will think this is health care reform. This is not even insurance reform,” he said.

The White House pushed back hard at liberals’ complaints Tuesday, with Obama talking up what’s in the plan but not saying a word about what’s been left out:

A single-payer plan, a public option, a state “opt-out” of the public option, a trigger and a Medicare buy-in — all ideas pushed by Democrats and blessed by Obama at various times but now gone from the bill.

But it’s not just the liberal base that’s feeling unsettled. Obama has also proved frustrating to moderates, who simply wanted to know where Obama’s core principles on health care stood, all the better to cut a deal to the president’s liking.

Time and again, he rebuffed Democrats’ requests to speak up more forcefully about what he wanted — a strategy that allowed Obama to preserve maximum flexibility to declare victory at the end of the process, no matter what the final bill looked like.

He began that process in earnest Tuesday after a meeting with Senate Democrats, who are resigned to dropping a Medicare buy-in compromise to win the vote of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and get the 60 votes needed to pass a bill.

...Obama’s need to pass a reform bill ahead of the 2010 elections drove the political calculus as the calendar turned to December, when the days grew short and the pressure to sign something, anything, began to take precedence. Otherwise, Democrats risked facing voters next fall with little to show for a full year of twin congressional majorities. It’s what drove White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut a deal with Lieberman.

The final bill isn’t even close to a bill then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama spoke of in 2003, when he said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan,” using the terms that commonly refer to a government-run health insurance system.

...But whatever Democrats can pass now — if they can pass anything at all — also will fall short of ideas Obama discussed during the year to create a public health insurance plan to provide competition to private insurance companies and keep them honest.

Yet perhaps what angers liberals the most is that Obama himself never seemed willing to push hard enough for the public option — and, in fact, all but took it off the table in August when he said he could sign a bill that didn’t include it.

Once Obama said he didn’t need a public option, these progressives argue, there was no cost or penalty to be paid by a Lieberman or a Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) or a Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) for taking to the Senate floor and opposing it, too.

Progressives feel betrayed, but are not surprised, by the Senate’s move to drop the Medicare buy-in and the public option. They blame Reid and Obama for not exercising their power to fight for the provisions.

Obama’s failure to demand a public option and Reid’s decision to take reconciliation off the table emboldened moderates who might have thought twice about challenging a popular president or a Democratic majority comfortable with using Senate procedure to pass a bill with 51 votes.

...If Obama was hoping for a triumphant announcement out of a rare White House meeting with the entire Senate Democratic Caucus Tuesday, his measured tone and acknowledgment that differences remain showed how much work is still ahead for Democrats eager to wrap up by Christmas.

Reid was still awaiting a price tag on his bill from congressional scorekeepers, and Nelson said he still can’t support the current version of the bill, which lacks the tough anti-abortion language he seeks.

But after leaving the White House meeting, even some of the staunchest public option advocates seemed resigned to passing a bill without it or the Medicare buy-in, a sort of public option for people ages 55 to 64 — a sign of a split between liberal elected officials and the activist base. Obama’s argument that Democrats shouldn’t pass up a once-in-a-generation chance to achieve reform appeared to be sinking in.

Brown, who has said several times throughout this process — including two weekends ago — that the president needed to get more involved, brushed aside any introspection about what the loss of the public option says about Democrats or the president.

“It says something about the math here,” Brown said. “You’ve got to get all 60 Democrats and independents, and it is hard to do. I want to continue to talk to people. ... I like the bill. I just think we could make it better.” ...