Healthcare

[claidheamhmor]

I've been reading a lot about the proposed US healthcare bill, and the opposition to it. Now, to my mind, general public healthcare is a good thing; can anyone explain reasonably clearly why this proposal has problems? I'd like to know why there is opposition to it.

Comments

[polymale.livejournal.com]

That's... pretty complicated.

Me, I'd like good, efficient, and effective comprehensive universal health care paid for primarily by taxes. Pity that's not on the table.

[the-eleven.livejournal.com]

Well..because my understanding is that the thing you call admirable isn't QUITE what's being offered.

I don't feel like writing a long essay here but I don't think there's another way to explain the issues properly. Essentially, the odds are good that this is just going to cause US medical expenses to SKYROCKET. We aren't adding new providers, just lots of new customers; and on top of that none of the bills address the tort reform issue (look it up).

The US employer-based healthcare system has been a nightmare hodgepodge since the '40s. A GOOD solution would be to wipe the table clean and institute a single-payer system. This solution at hand just piles a MASSIVE layer of bureaucracy and paperwork on top of a system already overpriced and prone to fraud and corruption.

I guess my complaint is that I don't think it will promote better access to healthcare. Most of the people I know in their 20s have insurance, but it costs so much and has such a high deductible that they can't afford to use it unless they're in a catastrophic situation, and nothing being proposed looks like it will fix that.

[iskender.livejournal.com]

I know this may just echo what's already been said, but let me say why I am not happy with it.

It's not universal health care. It's not socialized medicine.

Now, the reason why more people are protesting is because they have a lot of misdirected anger and the people they trust are telling them that we're in the midst of a communist/fascist/Muslim take-over, and people are plainly ignorant.

But the reason why there is opposition is not the reason why there should be opposition.

[redqueenmeg.livejournal.com]

[ubet-cha.livejournal.com]

I think you may be confusing a good concept and applying that to a bad bill. Passing a bill no matter the content is disastrous. Here are are few items that are stink in the most recent bill from the house.




• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit. #


````````
`
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later. "Take a look at contributions from Insurance companies to individual politicians. This is basically an open invitations for graft. If you want to be kinder and ignore the implied evidence then take it at face value. Its making a law for plans that don't exist yet."


On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement. "This goes against many American principles. Forcing people to accept a plan when they willingly do not now."

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

- It does nothing to allow health plans to compete across lines, increasing costs and again corruption. This time at the state level.

- It does not address tort reform for medical malpractive case.

- It does not address drug prices adequately and guess who's been raising their prices the past few years. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/business/16drugprices.html

- None of the penalty settings or income levels are indexed for inflation. This oversight was deliberate as the house knows that centralized health care system has ever met its initial 'proclaimed' costs and will unfairly burden mid to lower-middle class families with a higher proportion of the costs in a short amount of time.

[claidheamhmor]

Thanks, looks like some nasty railroading going on there. (It was actually your post on the topic that got me wondering).