Should the health care bill as it is now be allowed to die and not pass?

[keep_it_real]

Would this bill be more harmful to Americans than helpful?

[Truth2Tell]

1. Yes. Next question? nt

[el_bryanto]

2. Interesting question

I think we will have to see what comes out of committee but I generally favor passing it, on two grounds. It will actually help a lot of people (in my opinion) and it will allow the dialogue to continue (the last time healthcare fell aprt was in 1993 or so? And it was a long time before we could get the conversation to start back up).

Bryant

[Kolesar]

4. That was insightful.

I have not yet figured out if states still have the power to enact single-payer or other significant improvements over HCR-2009

[dflprincess]

8. The ability for states to find real solutions on their own was removed

from the House bill by Pelosi even though it had passed a committee vote (this is/was the Kucinich amendment). Supposedly it was removed at Obama's request and Pelosi claimed it had to come out because it would "break the president's promise that people would be able to keep the insurance they have now if they like it".

I do not believe a provision allowing it is in the Senate bill, but I can't say for sure.

[cali]

16. Yes, it's in the Senate version. n/t

[Kolesar]

17. THX...eom

[dflprincess]

28. Do you have a link to that?

I keep finding some that say it is and some that say it isn't - and I can't find a copy of the bill the Senate actually voted on. I have a copy of the one they put out a few weeks ago, but that was before any changes were made.

[rwheeler31]

3. It gets us down the road.

[DJ13]

5. The precedent of government forcing the purchase of a private product

is a road we should not go down just to get "something we can build on later", as the Obama apologists like to say in defense of this bill.

Its a road towards corporate fascism, and no Im not kidding.

Mussolini would have loved this kind of legislation.

[Eric J in MN]

6. There is a House bill and a Senate bill.

Next year there will be a merged bill.

I won't know if I support the merged bill until it exists.

[xchrom]

7. In the current form -- government and private enterprze

Have married in a way they haven't before.
How do you -- or anyone propose they divorce?

We have chosen -- for reasons toonumerous to number --
not to regulate the way we do public utilities -- if it was this hard
to get the over complicated legislation -- does any one really imagine we
will 'fix' it later?

Simplicity -- I.e. Medicare for all -- was always the best option.

We haven't made it easier to get there -- we've made it harder.

And by the way -- marrying government and the private sector this way has no corrolation with
fdr.

[frazzled]

10. In what way have we chosen "not to regulate"?

As many have pointed out, there are 400 pages worth of insurance company regulations in this bill. In fact, it will be the first time that the federal government has been able to regulate insurance: it has always been the province of the individual states.

Secondly, the government (your state government) is married to the private sector in many ways: not least of all requiring you to purchase automobile insurance if you own a car, and a private homeowner's policy if you purchase a property. Now you may say, yes, but you don't have to own a car or a home. True. But you can't NOT own your body: and it is to the common good that we require you to insure that body. The cost of having people not insured is unsustainable to the economic (not to mention moral) well-being of the country as a whole. It's a "common good" thing. Would I prefer we achieved that common good under a wholly government program? You betcha, but that is not the universe we are living in right now. If some zealot wants to tell you to wait for a better deal in the next life, don't count on it.

[Hello_Kitty]

12. The cost of insurance is unsustainable to very many people

And this bill does little to nothing to address that. Most people who are insured through their work will see no change and many of them are paying a lot out of pocket. People who make "too much" to qualify for subsidies will be presented with a ginormous new bill. But hey, $44K a year is "rich" or so I've been told on DU and people making that much have buckets of money lying around to hand to the insurance industry.

Don't hand me the car insurance crapola. I pay $800 a year for full coverage of several hundred thousand dollars for my auto policy. Auto insurance is inexpensive for most people because it doesn't really cost much to insure a large number of people against the statistically small risk that they will be in a collision that costs several thousand dollars. Not so with health insurance. We need health CARE in this country, not mandatory expensive-ass insurance that transfers more of the wealth of the middle class to the upper class.

[frazzled]

27. I'm sorry you are so misinformed on the issues

If you haven't been able to get into the nitty gritty of this legislation to understand how it works, I'll certainly never be able to explain it to you now.

And car insurance is cheaper because (a) everyone is required to buy it, thus widening the risk pool; and because (b) you very rarely have to use it. How many times have you totaled your car in the last 20 years? And a total loss on a car is the equivalent to 1-3 days in the hospital. How many times have you killed someone with your car? These things are rare. Health care is something that every single individual will eventually in their life use a lot of. And the cost of providers is very high. This bill is intended to try to put downward pressure on some of those costs.

[Hello_Kitty]

29. Your snotty condescending attitude is sure to win you many converts

And yes, genius, I'm aware of why car insurance is different, which is why it's a ridiculously false analogy that a child can see through. That's my whole point. Not only is the risk of catastrophic collision smaller but you can't use your car insurance for routine maintenance, repairs, or to correct a manufacturing defect.

Remember, YOU support this bill. YOU need to sell it to people. Being a pedantic jagoff is not the way to do it.

[napi21]

9. NO! There are great things like the elimination of pre-existing

conditions, and stipping ins. co's from tossing you out if you cost too much! There are a lot of other things that are good for everybody. If yu can't afford ins, you will get a subsidy, so you shouln't be complaining about the mandate. If you can afford ins. and just don't want to spend the money, I say TS. You want ME to pay if you get seriously injured or suddenly find out you have a serious illness but you could afford ins. but just don't want to? I have no problem paying extra taxes for the people who really can't afford ins. but for those who think they are invinceable, I have no sympathy at all!

[Hello_Kitty]

13. You don't know jack shit about the unisured.

I'm so sick of the bullshit Welfare Queen memes being spewed about people who don't have insurance.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. Should we continue to allow 45,000 people die a year because they don't have health care?

Gee, I don't know. I mean, from a strictly moral stand point it would be far better to let them die than to try and help some of them. What will they do with their lives, anyway?
:sarcasm:

[eridani]

14. Mandatory underinsurance is not going to change that n/t

[DailyGrind51]

18. Yes, it will, if they can't get "rescinded" just because they get sick!

[eridani]

30. They can get rescinded for not being able to pay premiums

People who are sick are highly likely to not be able to afford to pay them.

[Ozymanithrax]

23. Health care will almost double the number of people on medicaid.

What that does is get health care for millons. And that is just one of the many benefits that progressives like Bernie Sanders say are critical.

[eridani]

31. There is no need to tie expansion of Medicaid to mandatory underinsurance

[cali]

15. It's done. now people have the choice of

posting stuff like this- unconnected to reality- or working to implement it in their states.

[DailyGrind51]

19. This bill can be modified and improved with time. Killing it outright will mean the status quo

for another generation. I am a cancer survivor who believes that even this small step is better than the status quo.

[KharmaTrain]

20. Too Late For That...

The deals have been done...too much political capital has been spent to turn back now. This administration is hell-bent on signing a bill. The only roadblock may be the House...depending on how much resolve the Progressives and CBC have here, but even then I suspect the votes to pass the current Senate bill will be found and it will be a done deal.

Is the bill harmful? Depends on who you are. For those who have no coverage or have a pre-existing condition, this is better than what they have and the establishment of clinics is sure to be a positive in many communities. Yes, the mandate is a major problem but the devil remains in those details...especially when subsidies are mixed in. On the whole, for many who are insured, there won't be a massive change and caps on profits may just put a halt on rising prices. Again...so much is assumed, but little is really known.

The only given is what we currently have is dysfunctional and if left alone millions will needlessly die and others will face the humiliation of bankruptcy. Walk away from the bill and if you thought politicians were spineless in dealing with this matter now, watch how far away they stay from the issue if it turns out to be a failure.

[Laelth]

21. Um ... yes. For several reasons.

The main one being that this bill will preempt state law. California will probably pass single-payer health-care legislation in 2011. All they need is a Democratic Governor. The legislature has already passed the bill. Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Once California has single-payer, most (if not all) states will follow suit.

It's likely that if we pass a new law now, the new law will preempt single-payer, i.e. the Federal law will preempt state law and prevent states from enacting a single-payer system.

THIS is what the health insurance companies fear. THIS is what brought them to the bargaining table. THIS is why they are not fighting Obama's tepid reforms, and THIS is why it is extremely important that we do not pass any health insurance reform bill this year.

Let's not settle for a bail-out of the health insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it. In all likelihood, California will lead the way in 2011 ... if we can just give them time.

Canada got its single-payer system one Province at a time. It looks like that's the only way it's going to happen in the U.S.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[mmonk]

22. The battle over what becomes the final bill will tell.

[Way2go]

24. In my opinion, yes it should.

It's terrible and should be put out of its misery.

[RainDog]

25. initially I thought the bill should die. but I've changed my mind

with the option for public health that Sanders inserted into the bill, there is a way to amend this to benefit the American public.

without the bill, this isn't possible.

the bill needs to change in the process of reconciliation so that the pharma and insurance co give ways are ameliorated by funds for public health.

the American market cannot bear the costs that the pharmas have put on the people here. if the bill doesn't even address this problem, then pharmas should direct some of their profits to subsidizing medicines for people - not the "indigent" make a phone call and have people get their meds by mail redtape, but by actually supplying community health care centers with medicines that are in line with costs for every other western democracy.

I don't think that's outrageous. If Grover Norquist wants to pay full price, out of pocket for medications, let him. but don't force Americans to have to choose between needed medicines and groceries.

[terrell9584]

26. It needs to fail

If it passes all the damage that Bush did to the GOP brand will be erased. It almost already has been erased based on polling.


That should scare everyone. It took nearly 40 years for the damage Hoover did to the Rep brand to be overcome. Bush was just as unpopular at the end and now it looks as if he didn't even matter.


That should be scary.