What's in the Healthcare Bill for You?

[roster]

I know many of the Democrat members here are happy that the health care bill continues to move toward enactment. It is quite puzzling to me why you are happy. The bill seems to offer none of what you have stated here that you want.

It would be interesting to have you tell us what you think you are getting out of this bill. Just one or two items would be very enlightening, because I just don't get it.

I went over to my enemy's site (the Socialists) and here is some of what they say about the bill:

- the Senate bill, which mirrors the central flaw of the House bill as well, is that it "cedes far too much power to the tyranny of a callous insurance industry,"

- the current bill may lock into place a dysfunctional and inhumane system that threatens to move beyond the reach of more comprehensive reform for generations to come.

- the bill seems more likely to be eroded, not improved, in future years due to the unchecked influence of the health care industry lobbyists

- an individual mandate forcing the uninsured to buy private insurance or be criminalized and subject to fines, in fact symbolizes the power of the insurance industry.

- The likely outcome is that far too many people will still face health care insecurity or medical bankruptcy due to ever rising out-of-pocket costs, or continue to skip needed medical care because of the high prices.

- will push employers to further reduce benefits for workers, and shift more costs to employees

- weak price controls on insurance companies

- the inequity of the entire provision

- lining up millions of new customers for the insurance giants, while failing to stop their price gouging or significantly cracking down on denials of claims

- Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail "wellness" programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.

- Allowing insurers to charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.

- Insurers may continue to rescind policies for "fraud or intentional misrepresentation" - the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.

- the insurance companies stand to gain tens of millions of new customers and at least $447 billion in taxpayer subsidies

So, please, what do you think you and our fellow citizens are getting out of this bill?

[Slinky]

A royal screwing! What else do I ever get from my government and those politicians and lobbyists?

[timbalionguy]

Lookie what I get! Government in my face and in my back pocket. Kiss goodbye to making payments on things like my house, etc. I'll be too busy paying for my health insuirance, which will nail me for being obses (and probably force me to correct the problem on their terms).

I hope this mess breaks the back of the Federal government and allows the people of this country to take back their government!

[Gerryk]

What do you mean government in my back pocket. As soon as this crap passes that won't be my pocket it will be the governments pocket. I say if they pass it for us, then they should lose their insurance, benefits and retirement and get stuck with what they give us.

[PST]

Lookie what I get! Government in my face and in my back pocket. Kiss goodbye to making payments on things like my house, etc. I'll be too busy paying for my health insuirance, which will nail me for being obses (and probably force me to correct the problem on their terms).

I have asked before and never got an answer, so maybe it's futile. But let me try once again. There is not one word in the bill that could allow the government to force anyone to lose weight. If it's there is, cite to it. Prove me wrong. This just gets repeated in thread after thread, challenged, and never answered.

[Julie]

Ok Rooster... we get it, you don't like the new bill. However, has it occurred to you at all that it might not have been written for you, but for all the millions of people who don't have ANY health care at all? Who literally have to declare bankruptcy if someone gets sick? Is it really OK with you that all those people just have no decent care (most of the time through no fault of their own), and that they include millions of kids? I guess just as long as you're ok, the heck with them?

[Gerryk]

I can answer that too not just Rooster. I have taken small pay hikes so that I could get benefits where I work such as healthcare. I saw this coming well over 20 years ago. The Me generation with the immediate gratification sure haven't helped this country much. I do feel sorry for people who don't have insurance, but I have given up pay increases so I can have insurance, and I find it discusting that I should be taxed on my benefits so the people who didn't have the foresight to get insurance through work benefits can now have coverage via my back pocket.

[PST]

What do you mean government in my back pocket. As soon as this crap passes that won't be my pocket it will be the governments pocket. I say if they pass it for us, then they should lose their insurance, benefits and retirement and get stuck with what they give us.

Congress will continue to have what most of us have: our old employer-based insurance. Members of Congress are on the same plan as other civilian federal employees, and the bill has been crafted to interfere as little as possible with employer-based insurance coverage. That's a lot of the reason the National Nurse's Union Rooster cites is unhappy. Some liberals who couldn't count votes wanted a national single payer plan, but that is impossible politically. What we got is what the 41st most conservative senator was willing to accept, and that meant something that won't change life much for the 160 million of us covered through our work. The big change is in making coverage available to those who don't have it now. It is estimated that 31 million more people will get health insurance. It is only if we lose our employment, and thus our coverage, that we'll really feel the change. I guess you could say the same for members of Congress. If they lose their jobs, they'll have what we all will have, a reasonable source for health insurance that cannot be denied due to a preexisting condition.

[Gerryk]

Who do you think is going to foot the bill for this insurance plan. They are planning on taxing the health insurance benefits of those who have it to give to those who don't. A tax is a tax no matter what you call it, no matter what color it is or how nice you try to make it smell. This coutry was built on a tax revolt.

[PST]

I can answer that too not just Rooster. I have taken small pay hikes so that I could get benefits where I work such as healthcare. I saw this coming well over 20 years ago. The Me generation with the immediate gratification sure haven't helped this country much. I do feel sorry for people who don't have insurance, but I have given up pay increases so I can have insurance, and I find it discusting that I should be taxed on my benefits so the people who didn't have the foresight to get insurance through work benefits can now have coverage via my back pocket.

And that could all be lost instantly if the company fails. You could lose everything you worked for if that job goes away and you can't replace the coverage because you are already sick. I've had the same experience you've had -- taken less in pay to have first-class health insurance. I can tell you from the heart that the second thought that went through my brain six years ago when I was diagnosed with cancer was that if I lose this job, my family and I are completely screwed. I may have the skills to find another one, but I can't be sure of insurance coverage ever again. This is not just a problem for the imprudent. Everyone faces risk they can't guard against today that they many not be able to get health insurance in the future. That's what this bill changes, and that's why it is essential even if we all can find things to criticize in it. Finally, I don't believe that the bill taxes any recipients on their benefits. There is a proposed tax on employers for certain plans that are much more costly than normal.

[roster]

Ok Rooster... we get it, you don't like the new bill. However, has it occurred to you at all that it might not have been written for you, but for all the millions of people who don't have ANY health care at all? Who literally have to declare bankruptcy if someone gets sick? Is it really OK with you that all those people just have no decent care (most of the time through no fault of their own), and that they include millions of kids? I guess just as long as you're ok, the heck with them?

No. I asked the Democrats here to tell me what is in the bill for them. The ones who come here whining about the evil insurance companies and having no insurance and being ripped off by the insurance companies. I want one of these people to tell me one thing this bill will do good for them. I don't see it. If somebody can give me a specific example of something good this bill will do for them, I will shut up. for five minutes

I talked to the leftist parts of our family at our Christmas gatherings during the last two days and the ones that have enough sense to read are furious about this bill and are writing their congressmen to vote against the final bill. These are lifelong Democrats. They say the bill is going to enrich and further empower the entrenched large companies in the insurance industry.

[bearded_two]

I have employer provided health insurance and this bill isn't designed to help me in my present circumstances, but my circumstance could very well change -- and I see this bill as a form of insurance in the event I lose employer provided insurance. I am fortunate to have always had employer provided health insurance, but in the present economy, I do not know how long I will have a job and health insurance There are a large number of otherwise hard working individuals who have found themselves without a job and without the ability to get health insurance. I have good skills and a good work history, and in a decent economy I shouldn't have a problem getting a job. I have seen people who also have good skills and work history get laid off, lose their employer provided health insurance, and not be able to afford the very high COBRA insurance cost. At my age and with my health problems, I doubt that I could even get individual health insurance right now.

This bill is designed to help people who aren't able to get insurance, especially those with pre-existing conditions -- and I very well could become one of those people. There are some major flaws in the bill, not the least of which is that we do not know how much this bill will cost. I doubt that there will be a significant, if any, tax on employer paid health insurance -- mostly because there is strong union resistance to such a tax.

To those people questioning the benefits that I am going to get from this health bill, I ask you what benefit you believe that you are getting from the horribly expensive, both in tax money and in lives, from Bush's war in Iraq?

[PST]

No. I asked the Democrats here to tell me what is in the bill for them. The ones who come here whining about the evil insurance companies and having no insurance and being ripped off by the insurance companies. I want one of these people to tell me one thing this bill will do good for them. I don't see it. If somebody can give me a specific example of something good this bill will do for them, I will shut up. [There is something else here but it is too small for me to read.]

I thought I had, more than once, but my answer may not count because I haven't whined about the evil insurance companies. There are plenty of reasons why, as a liberal and a Democrat (and one who can read), I think this bill is important. Insurance companies are rational economic actors who don't want to extend coverage to someone who already has a costly condition. If they did, they would be vulnerable to adverse selection. It is a structural problem that cannot be fixed without legislation because there is no reasonable premium at which an insurer can offer coverage to someone for whom huge future expense has become likely. In addition, there is no mechanism for insuring now against the risk that in the future one will develop an expensive, permanent condition and also lose employer-based coverage. The solution is a requirement that substantially everyone purchase coverage, and that all insurers take all comers and cover pre-existing conditions. Then no single insurance company faces a competitive disadvantage with respect to the others from issuing policies to those with pre-existing conditions. The risk is spread among all, and they are free to compete on the basis of efficiency rather than their ability to weed out the sick. That is the essence of the current proposal: (1) guaranteed issue, (2) no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and (3) subsidies where necessary to limit the share of income required.

I can't do better than bearded_two in describing the chief example of how the bill could be a lifesaver for me or anyone else too young for Medicare. I will add a second example, though. Alice's oldest child is in graduate school, working a couple of part-time jobs, but unable to find employment that offers him health insurance coverage. He is too old to be included on her family policy. Individual coverage for young people is very expensive now because typically they do without unless it comes as a part of a job. Only those who expect to need it seek it out, and the premium is therefore high due to adverse selection. If Alice's son has a serious accident, she could wind up paying for his care from her own pockets for the rest of her life. The bill will let parents keep students on their family plans to age 26 and provide a means to get them on individual coverage thereafter.

Rooster, if your liberal relatives want a good explantion why they should still support the bill, tell them to read Ezra Klein at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... o_kil.html.

[montana]

One thing? My uninsured daughter with a pre-existing illness will be able to get affordable health insurance. Now you can shut up.

[JohnBFisher]

... No. I asked the Democrats here to tell me what is in the bill for them. ...

Rooster, I am not a Democrat. However, I am both a Republican and person of faith. Let me answer from that viewpoint.

First, let me make it clear that the process of making a bill is never pleasing. Are there problems with this bill as it stands? Yes. Do I hope they will be addressed? Yes. Will all of those problems be addressed? No. That is the simple reality of legislation. It ain't pretty.

Second, PST clearly and correctly outlined the problems in the current system. I also fear that I might loose my employment. If that happens, I will have several preexisting conditions that would make it almost impossible for me to obtain healthcare. What worries me is that I may be on the verge of not being able to work at all. However, if you think my company or any governmental agency would give me some free ride, you are sadly mistaken. I would probably loose my home. As it stands if I loose my job, it would be better for my wife if I was not alive. But that's okay. I am only one person of no import.

Third, and I quote you here "I asked the Democrats here to tell me what is in the bill for them." Why, sir, should I only want legislation that addresses only my needs? Should we not as a society work toward a better situation for all members of the society? This is not socialism. This is the obligations we accept toward one another as members of a society and as citizens of a nation.

What's in it for me? Well, I also answer as someone who believes there is both value and potential horror in the free enterprise system. But you know the lessons. Charles Dickens had Scrooge decry the "surplus populations", only to teach his readers through the eyes of Scrooge that all members of the society have value.

But don't just take my word for it:

35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

By the way, does this bill REALLY address the need to help one another? Oh, it might help some. It certainly can help remove some problems. It certainly is not the entire answer. Afterall, each and everyone of us needs to "become the change we want to see in the world". Rooster, you CLEARLY know this. You provide a father figure for a young man without one. PADACHEEK knows this. She challenges us to Pay It Forward.

Unfortunately, to only say "NO!" to change (as my fellow Republicans have blindly embraced that tactic) in NOT the answer. We MUST solve some of our healthcare problems. We must be concerned about all of our citizens. We must be concerned about one another. That is why I hope (foolish as it might be) the final legislation will help improve the lot of all citizens. Will it? I certainly don't know. But doing nothing is not acceptable as a responsible citizen of this country and as a person of faith.