tiredHouse Democrats Unveil Landmark Health Care Legislation
Carolyn Lochhead, The San Francisco Chronicle: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top Democrats opened an all-fronts charge today to pass a $1.5 trillion, 10-year health care overhaul by August, unveiling legislation that would tax the wealthy to pay for universal coverage, create a public insurance plan and require individuals to carry insurance and businesses to offer it."
We need health care reform. We need it badly. We don't need BAD health care reform. I think that as soon as the idea of "tax the wealthy" comes up, many powerful people will balk. Also, there are better ways to fund this project; if it's going in a tax-the-wealthy direction, those other ways probably aren't happening. I'm in favor of a public option. I'm not in favor of forcing people to carry insurance. That would be a massive windfall to an industry that has all but destroyed health care; it would force people to financially support an industry they may justifiably despise and wish to go bankrupt; and it could add one more bill to the pile of bills that some people can't afford to pay. Theoretically there will be subsidies, but I'm dubious about the government's ability to discern what peopel can "really" afford.
I see this going the way of the chrome-plated tightly-clumped orgy that the climate change bill turned into. I am disgusted.
July 16 2009, 07:51:00 UTC 11 years ago
July 16 2009, 12:37:21 UTC 11 years ago
Hmm...
July 18 2009, 03:26:50 UTC 11 years ago
I would first concentrate on reducing costs. Simply cutting out the entire health insurance industry would route all that money directly into medical goods and services. Providing coverage to everyone would make it possible to sort care and keep non-emergency complaints out of the extremely expensive emergency rooms, saving much money and hassle. I would add to every hospital, and preferably some other places, a 24/7 station for handling things that need urgent care (same day or next day) but not emergency (within an hour) care. I'd switch health care in general from for-profit to nonprofit basis; we know that works because nonprofits exist and typically provide better care than either profit OR government equivalents. Cutting costs would reduce the need to rustle up money to pay for health care.
If I had the whole budget in my hands, frankly I would fund health care before funding other things such as military expenses. I'd be more inclined to fund health care out of the general government budget than to add an extra tax for it. Health care is something that everyone should support because everyone benefits from having a generally healthy population.
I think the rich should pay a higher percentage of tax in general, but I don't think it's fair to charge only them for something that will benefit everyone. Not only is it unfair, it will raise a lot of resistance to the proposal, and we don't need that.
July 16 2009, 12:41:58 UTC 11 years ago
Yes...
July 16 2009, 18:31:03 UTC 11 years ago
It amazes me that nobody seems to notice how health insurance now costs as much or more than housing. If you spend the recommended 1/3 of your income on housing, another 1/3 or so on health insurance, that only leaves 1/3 for all the other bills (not to mention taxes). No wonder people are going broke.
July 16 2009, 16:41:59 UTC 11 years ago
This is half of why I am absolutely against mandated health 'insurance'. The other half is that I loathe insurance companies.
IMO, everyone should be covered by Uncle Sam, paid for by a payroll tax. The tax cost of this universal coverage would be far less than what companies pay as a Health Insurance Benefit (private tax) to the health insurance mafia.
People don't want individual mandates, and the states where they have them are floundering.
Company mandates are a bad idea, IMO. If a company doesn't want to pay 10% of payroll for private insurance, they can pay 8% to have their people covered under the public plan. Basically, if private insurance isn't competitive, they can go suck it. What I fear, though, is that companies will go with bare-bones catastrophic-only at 4% to avoid the tax, but it still won't provide adequate coverage to their employees.
Yes, states have car insurance mandates, but you don't have to have a car - if you drive, then you must be insured. You have to live - there's no "if X, then Y" there.
BTW, the actual bill is 1080 pages, pdf.
Thoughts
July 16 2009, 18:19:56 UTC 11 years ago
I'm in favor of a single-payer system. I'd consider allowing a private option for sake of choice, but complete health care should be provided by the government as part of citizenship. Payroll tax for employees or business tax is one way to fund this, but I wouldn't want it to go over what people pay now, and really it should be a lot less. Cutting out the middlemen of the insurance industry would save tremendous money.
>>People don't want individual mandates, and the states where they have them are floundering.<<
I know it's a bad idea, but I didn't know about the floundering states; that's useful data.
>>Company mandates are a bad idea, IMO. If a company doesn't want to pay 10% of payroll for private insurance, they can pay 8% to have their people covered under the public plan. Basically, if private insurance isn't competitive, they can go suck it. What I fear, though, is that companies will go with bare-bones catastrophic-only at 4% to avoid the tax, but it still won't provide adequate coverage to their employees.<<
Yes, that's the kind of thing that worries me also. One thing the reformers are fighting for is some kind of basic coverage that all plans would have to offer; that might help. But under-insurance is as bad a problem as no insurance, and looking at bankruptcies it actually contributes to more of them. Most bankruptcies are due to medical bills, but most of those people had insurance and it didn't help. They were responsible, they did everything right, and society shafted them so somebody else could get rich. That way lies disaster.
>>Yes, states have car insurance mandates, but you don't have to have a car - if you drive, then you must be insured. You have to live - there's no "if X, then Y" there.<<
This really bothers me, because as you say, people have an out with car insurance but wouldn't with mandated health insurance.
>>BTW, the actual bill is 1080 pages, pdf.<<
*sigh* Even I couldn't make it through that. I wish people would write concise laws. Instead they write byzantine arcana intended to obscure the contents.