What exactly does this bill say?

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

_________________
mechaphil

The mandate to carry insurance is the most controversial provision, and most likely to be stuck down on legal challenge in my opinion.

I disagree that the rest of the bill is a steaming pile.

So, what exactly is complete shit about it? The Budget? The mandate?
I think the forced reforms of certain practices by the health insurance companies is fucking awesome. People shouldnt have to either die or bankrupt their family, just because they get sick. We're able to fight two simultaneous wars costing us over a trillion dollars, but we cant make healthcare affordable, or even ATTAINABLE for some people? Thats the bullshit.

I look at is something I have to "unfuck or overcome" before handing it off to my children.

_________________

The mandate is unconstitutional.
We now have a law that forces me to enrich a private company or face jail time...you'd think the Democrats would be the ones accused of being in the pocket of the insurance companies and not the other way around.

If you think it is constitutional I'd love to hear your argument.


That's completely irrelevant, but where do you think that money is going?
It's going to pay soldiers, to buy food and services for them, to buy equipment made my American manufacturers.

This country and its constitution was designed to provide opportunity for all.....not "things" for all.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

1. Children can no longer be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. This takes affect in 2010. Adults get the same protection, but not until 2014.
2. Small businesses (less than 50 employees) get tax credits covering up to half of employee premiums.
3. Medicare prescription drug 'donut hole' (the gap in coverage) starts getting filled. (I didn't see when it's completely closed, but 50% closed next year)
4. Children can be carried on parents health insurance until age 27.
5. Lifetime caps on what insurance will pay out are banned. (Now) Annual caps start to be phased out, and banned by 2014.
6. Adults will pre-existing conditions can get into a high-risk pool now for coverage. This is removed by 2014.
7. New plans must cover preventative care. All plans must have such coverage by 2018.
8. Insurance companies can no longer drop you if you do get sick to avoid paying out benefits.
9. Insurance companies must publicly state how much money is spent on administrative overhead, and not on actual health care payments.
10. All new plans must include an appeals process that patients can use if their claims are denied.
11. 10% tax on indoor tanning services.
12. New processes to fight insurance fraud and waste.
13. Medicare expansion to rural hospitals.
14. Non-profit Blue Cross / Blue Shield companies must spend 85% of all incoming funds on health care payments in order to maintain certain non-profit tax benefits.
15. Restaurants must start putting nutrition info on menus.

These are some of the changes that take effect sooner rather than later. You also have :

1. Individual insurance mandate. People will be required to have health insurance, or be penalized. (I need to find the final details on this, and it's hard through a lot of the rhetoric out there.) I personally do not like this in any form.
2. Insurance exchanges. In the future by 2014 I think. I also need to read more on this to describe it further.

Doesn't seem so bad.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

My issue with the whole thing (and last night's discussion with my 22 year old, full time employed, not insured daughter) is NOT that people don't deserve health care coverage...they do, all of them! It's that the govenment shouldn't be the one RUNNING it (seeing how efficient our government is), the insurance companies and drug companies shouldn't be running it, because they are looking out for THEIR bottom line, not us. Unfortunately, I don't know WHO should be running it....but when I heard something about the IRS getting involved with it???

Sorry...it's a 'looks good on paper' and is great in theory, but oh what a tangled web we weave.

If you want my opinion, of course.

The individual mandate thing is kinda sketchy though.

The idea , in theory, is good. If someone has health insurance, they wouldn't wait to get treatment if they're sick, and be overall less of a financial strain on the system.

IE: If I break my leg, and go get it fixed, it's a done deal. If I break my leg and WAIT to get it fixed because I don't have insurance, it's going to get worse, and when I finally do go get it fixed it's going to cost more.

However, in practice, that isn't always going to be true. I have insurance, and I don't take advantage of the preventative care that I have available to me. I'd suspect many of you guys are in the same boat. You COULD go get those yearly checkups, but you don't.

As XC has already said, you know have the government forcing a private citizen to purchase a private insurance product. Even though the idea is good, that's still quite a big pill to swallow for even liberal folks like myself.

You will be fined 2.5% of your annual income.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/impris ... alth-care/
If you refuse to pay that fine (which is imposed by the IRS BTW):
Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
-Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
-Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.

So go buy a product from United health or Blue Cross or your ass can end up in jail citizen.

The only way a personal mandate is legal is if they stuck with a public option.
Since the Senate ditched that, it is unconstitutional.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Although we disagree on a lot, I agree with you completely here.

I would hope that in the resulting legal challenges to the bill, they can end up striking this part and not the rest of the good reforms.

Lots of good about it, and some bad.

We could debate this forever, but I'm going to wait and see how it plays out.

Democracy is alive and well, as if I don't like the way it works out, I don't have to vote for a democrat in the upcoming elections.

_________________
Wheelhouse

That's why this bill was a piece of crap.

Republicans agreed on many of the reforms that everyone likes. Not allowing people to be dropped for pre-existing conditions...guaranteeing access to all that want to buy it...expanding the marketplace.

Congress *could* have passed one or several smaller bills with bipartisan support.
Instead, in their arrogance, they tried to grab the brass ring of single payer/public option and failed all of us in the process.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Did they ever really start with single payer though? Even early on, far left pundits complained that they should have started at single payer, and given that up in concessions to end up at the public option.

Just spoke with my firms attorney's. We had an interesting conversation on this XC. And you would be absolutely correct. This will not stand up in a court of law. They will try the "Congress has the power to require the individual mandate under the Commerce clause." routine.
It is true, according to my attorney's, they can get away with this if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Dem's. This got me to thinking of the courts make up currently. The current court make up does not boed well for this challenge.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

I equate a public option to the phasing in of single payer since there's no way any private company could compete with the Federal government.

A public option was their back-door since they knew no one would go for a Canadian / UK style overhaul.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

So Cross, I only hear criticism from you regarding the health reform, i'm curious what you'd have done if you were in control. Do you think everyone should just be out for themselves? That we should just pay for ourselves and if you dont have any money, then, too bad?
The health care system seems so fucked, in so many ways and to so many people...there seems to be at least some consensus that things need to be changed. Do you agree? If so, what changes do you think need to occur?

No need for a thesis if you're not in the mood, I'd just love to hear what you'd prefer over this.

The Swiss model.

But I've said that about 100 times on here.

You do realize what we just got still doesn't cover everyone right?

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Well, never caught one of those swiss references.

Just did a quick google search, came upon an NPR article describing their system:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=92106731

first part:

"At first glance, Switzerland's health care system looks like it could be the perfect political compromise for the United States.

As Republicans would prefer, individuals — not employers or the government — choose from a broad array of health plans, sold by private insurance companies.

And as Democrats urge, everyone in Switzerland has health coverage (it's required by law), with the government providing generous subsidies for those who couldn't otherwise afford it.


I guess the reason you like a mandate for them, but not for us, has to do with further details of the two plans and how they work in their respective countries?

As for the coverage, what part of the population isnt covered under the health care bill?