HealtchCare Round II, Anybody Interested?

[OldGreyEagle]

OK, the president has said the time for talk is over, its time to pass the Health Care Reform Bill. Does anybody know what is in it? Last time, in the fall, there were links to the full text of the then proposed legislation and I don't seem to find that now. Last time various provisions were talked about openly and now the only thing I know for sure is some legislators don't like the language that is used in the Abortion provision and even then I am not sure if its pro or anti abortion.

 

What do we know for sure about the current bill? All that I thought I knew about the old bill is toast, what changes are in store for us? Will there be the widespread outrage that was present last time?

 

What is known for sure, and I don't mean political posturing

[T2Eagle]

My understanding is the Bill they're referring to is the one passed by the Senate with the then 60 Democrats voting in favor. Because of the change in the numbers caused by Scott Brown's victory, that exact Bill now needs to be passed by the House without changes so that it does not have to go back to the Senate for Reconciliation. If it had to go back to the Senate for reconciliation with even a slightly different House Bill than it could be subject to blockage by filibuster.

 

Whatever changes the House does want to make have to be made AFTER PASSAGE through a separate Bill under the budgeting process, a process not subject to filibuster.

Hope this was helpful. If anyone sees an error in the description here please amend it.

 

 

[Scoutfish]

T2Eagle...so what your saying is this: They have to pass the bil as is, then each side gets out their erasersand whiteout and says" Oops! When we said apples, we really meant oranges in paragraphes 34, 45, 68, 99, 326, 1232a, and sub sections A through ZZ!, so we are just gonna put in what we "really" meant to start with!"

 

LOL! That would almost be funny if it wasn't true!

[T2Eagle]

Not exactly Scoutfish, this is all about process.

 

My post here is really meant to be apolitical, that's what OGE asked for. When our founding fathers first passed the Constitution there was a political deal struck that they would vote on and approve the Constitution as we know it, Articles I -- VII, and that then they would approve the Bill of Rights, the cornerstone of our liberties, as a secondary piece of legislation.

 

Looked at strictly as a process this is similar. The House and Senate almost never vote on exactly the same wording for the same piece of legislation, even on the most mundane and non controversial piece of legislation, stuff like what is national rose hip tea day. They then go back and "reconcile" whatever differences there are between the wording of the two Bills. Then the reconciled Bill goes back to both chambers to approve. The unusual thing here is that because the make up of the Senate changed by one vote the house needs to accept the Senate version without any changes in order to avoid filibuster. So it's not about whiteout and redefinition it is about real changes afterwards and how much the people in the House trust the Senate. Imagine if after ratifying the original constitution the big states reneeged on the Bill of Rights, suddenly it's a whole different world.

 

From a political science viewpoint, leaving out the merits of any of the proposals, it is an unusual and fascinating process.

 

BTW 'fish, kudos on your take on the scout discipline thread, I think you are on the money on that one.

[Kahuna]

Whatever is in the bill(s) being reconciled, to pass something this major with a 51% majority is just outrageous. We're talking about something here that will affect every American and about 6% of our economy. It will be challenged on the constitutionality of many provisions and I think some are unconstitutional. Can a citizen be forced by law to purchase a product (health insurance)? This is simply a bad way to do it. They need to stop and start over again.

[Eamonn]

"Can a citizen be forced by law to purchase a product"

A lot would depend on how you view a product?

Is Education a product?

How about Security?

I really have no idea how much of the money I pay in taxes is used for things that I either know next to nothing about or things that if I were given the choice I'd opt not to support.

Having said that, at the end of the day don't we all hope that the people that are elected to represent us do just that?

Sure the guy or the guys you wanted to win may not have won. But that's just the way things go.

 

I have got lost in all the different plans, bills and whatever that has come out on Health Care.

Everyone, both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree that what we have in place now needs to be fixed.

As of this minute I'm maybe the wrong person to ask! I'm happy with what I've got and I'm reluctant to see it changed.

But being as I'm not as young as I used to be, I know that in about ten or so years from now my situation will change. But again I'm lucky knowing that I when I do retire I can keep my Health Care benefits. A perk that I know a lot of people don't have.

 

I never knew of anything other that what Americans call "Socialized Medicine" Being born and bred in the UK with National Health just being the accepted way that things were done.

I lived here in the States before we even heard of such things as HMO's and PTO's.

I seen where the National Health care failed, I seen the way people abused health care before the HMO and PTO plans came along.

Whatever the fix turns out to be?

I kinda feel it's not going to be an easy fix and it is going to be expensive.

How expensive? I don't know.

I do know that apart from what I pay toward my health care plan each month, my employer (In my case the State.) pays $800 a month.

The Union I'm a member of is pushing so that I don't have to pay anything and do away with all co-payments. I don't see us getting that! (One union does already have such benefits!)

While I do at times fall into the "I'm alright Jack" frame of mind, I do look at my son who is working full time, but is classed as a part time worker for a company that doesn't offer Health Insurance. He is only earning about $10.00 an hour and can't afford his own coverage. Worse still is that he works for a company where they get most of their income from Health Insurance companies.

God forbid that he would come down with something, not only would it drive him into bankruptcy, but chances are if it were a serious condition no company would insure him at a later date.

He'd dearly love to buy this "Product" But when the product would cost more than 50% of what he earns he just can't afford it.

If he did become seriously ill the bills would come in, not at the reduced rate that the insurance companies pay, but for the full amount. He would be unable to pay them. So who wins?

Eamonn.

 

 

[Kahuna]

"Can a citizen be forced by law to purchase a product"

A lot would depend on how you view a product?

 

Actually, it's ultimately going to depend on how the Supreme Court views it.

[Beavah]

Yah, like T2Eagle said, eh? They're talkin' about passing the Senate Bill.

 

Honestly, the last time I skimmed through these things my feelin' was that the net effect of all the Republican nay-saying was that it caused the bill to be more expensive and less responsible. It gave various special interests and particular democrats leverage to demand perqs and favors. Lots of poor accounting and "time bomb" financing.

 

Probably should scrap the thing and start over, except that there's no responsible middle in Congress right now to push a sensible bill. Both sides are beholden to their special interests and the combat politics of the day. Not expectin' any statesmanship from Pelosi or Reid, or from Boehner or McConnell.

 

As to governments requirin' purchase of a product, seems like that's what my state (and many others) do with auto insurance, eh? The alternative, of course, is just to have the government do it by way of taxing folks and then providing the service itself, the way we do with disaster relief. To my mind medical insurance (at least at da catastrophic level) is a bit like disaster relief for a family. Yeh want and need the whole community pitchin' in to help. It should pain us as citizens and Christians to see a family forced into bankruptcy because they happen to have a sick child, just as it pains us to see a community wrecked by a hurricane or a flood.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagledad]

>>As to governments requirin' purchase of a product, seems like that's what my state (and many others) do with auto insurance, eh?

[Beavah]

Yah, Eagledad, that's da problem with big government, eh?

 

Yeh can always claim to be "free" as long as you don't want to have a job (like the other thread that explains just how many jobs depend on government funding), or you don't want to have a car (a practical solution only for New Yorkers in modern America, where da corner grocery went away decades ago).

 

But if yeh do have a car, many states then require you to purchase a product (auto insurance) as a condition of allowing you to drive your car on public roadways.

 

Yeh can always just drive it around your own back 40 I guess...

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Kahuna]

"As to governments requirin' purchase of a product, seems like that's what my state (and many others) do with auto insurance, eh? "

 

Beavah, as an attorney, you must be joking. There is a vast difference between requiring to insure your automobile, which you are not required to have, and requiring you to insure yourself at your expense.

[Beavah]

There is a vast difference between requiring to insure your automobile, which you are not required to have.

 

Yah, guess my response wasn't clear enough. Must have been da funny accent .

 

Unless yeh live in a major urban metropolis that offers government-run transportation (buses and subways and the like) or a very small town where yeh can walk for your services, an automobile is a necessity, not a choice. Necessity for gettin' food, necessity for holdin' a job. So the requirement of licensing and registration and purchasing auto insurance falls on just about everybody. That's why DLs are the most widely accepted form of ID, eh?

 

So I'd call this a small difference, not a "vast" one, eh? But it's not a difference a wise conservative should be crowing about. Making a big issue of that difference is advocating for more than just a government-run "option", it's arguing for a full-out government-run program as the only way to go. I don't think yeh want that. It would be like public education - everyone has to pay into the public health option, but if yeh want to you can still pay on top of that for a better private plan for yourself or your kids. The state does require you to school your kids.

 

Of course lots of folks like public education despite its record, and are opposed to private schoolin' or vouchers.

 

There's not much of a Constitutional argument here, IMO, though I've no doubt that some loony tunes will try to make one. But if those arguments prevail, we'll end up with a worse system, not a better one.

 

Beavah

 

[scoutingagain]

Well the Republican Health Care Plan put into place here in Massachusetts by Republican Governor Mitt Romney and supported by Republican State Rep. now Republican Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, requires all adults to purchase Health insurance, and show evidence thereof annually, or pay a fine. To be fair, this plan could not have been put in place without state Democratic legislature support, but the concept of forced purchase of health insurance was initially in Mitt Romney's plan when it was proposed to the legislature. It's been in place now for several years, and I'm sure if anyone had an issue with it, it would have been challenged. It may have been and the MA Supreme Courty may have upheld it. Don't know what the US Supreme Court would do, but I suspect similar arguments would be made with a similar outcome.

 

So don't get the idea that if the current piece of legislation doesn't get passed, the issue of forced health insurance is going away. This is part of the 80% of the plan that both parties support. If a Republican Health Plan is proposed by a new Republican congress it's probably going to be in there. It one of the few ways to lower costs, by sharing the risk with a larger pool. It's one of the reasons insurance costs are rising so high in CA and other states. Healthy people are pulling out of the system, leaving those more likely to make claims, so insurance companies raise rates. The free market in action.

 

However as long as we continue to have disfunctional government, regardless of which party is in power, you won't have to worry about being required to buy health insurance. You will need to continue to wonder under what circumstances your insurance company will cancel your coverage, you will need to consider how much more you will have to pay for health insurance every year, you will need to be concerned about any pre-existing condition you or a member of your family has if you ever change jobs though.

 

Personally I don't think the current plan will pass though, even with a simple majority, and neither party is likely to enjoy a super majority for the foreseeable future. So the best recommendation I have and best wishes to all is to stay healthy.

 

SA

[JoeBob]

Our health care system really went over the cliff when government required the hospitals to render care to anyone who showed up in the emergency room door. It's a great humanitarian principle to be your brother's keeper, but once all the other brothers learned that they didn't need insurance, the cost of all that humanitarian care fell extra heavy onto the shoulders of responsible people who didn't like taking charity they didn't need.

 

If insurance companies can't refuse coverage because of pre-existing conditions - one of the requirements in the current bill - what moron is going to actually buy insurance in advance? Why pay for insurance now if you can wrap your car around a telephone pole, and then call your insurance agent later for collison coverage!?

[Lisabob]

JoeBob, are you seriously suggesting that many people intentionally opt not to buy insurance (when they could otherwise afford to buy it), just because they can get emergency care in public hospitals even without insurance?

 

Have you talked to very many people who do not have insurance and asked them about this? Have you talked to very many people who have had to delay medical care until it gets to the point of a medical emergency, simply because they could not afford insurance to help them cover the cost of preventive or routine maintenance care? Have you spent much time in public hospital emergency rooms, paying close attention to the kind of treatment and atmosphere often exist there? Not to belittle the over-worked, under-resourced public hospital staff whom i have known, but going to the emergency room is not exactly a desirable way for anybody with half a brain to get regular medical care.

 

I don't think your argument holds much water. I have very rarely met wealthy people who simply decide to forego insurance so that they can use publicly mandated emergency services. I have met many poor and middle class people who would dearly love to be able to afford health insurance, but who must make choices between paying the rent or mortgage, putting food on the table, or having health insurance.