White House Unveils $950 Billion Health Bill To Bridge Differences Between House And Senate Legislation
White House Unveils $950 Billion Health Bill To Bridge Differences Between House And Senate Legislation
Moments ago, the White House just released a $950 billion health care proposal bridging the differences between the House and Senate health care bills. Administration officials described the President’s legislation as “our take on how to bridge those differences” and explained that the language was informed by meetings between House and Senate officials. “We view this as the opening bid for the health meeting [on Thursday]. The President believes strongly that the meeting would be most productive were we to come to the table with one proposal that addresses these concerns as a pose to different proposals,” White House Communications Director David Pfeiffer explained.
The Obama plan maintains key elements of the Senate proposal but also incorporates stronger anti-fraud provisions and allows the federal government to review insurance rate hikes. On a call with reporters Pfeiffer insisted that the administration has not determined “on which path to move forward with”, but the bill’s substance suggests that Obama is hoping to bypass a prolonged-Senate debate and use the reconciliation process to fix the Senate bill and convince reluctant House progressives to pass the Senate legislation. “The American people deserve up or down vote on health reform,”Pfeiffer said. “We can get an up or down vote if opposition decides to take extraordinary steps of filibustering health reforms.”
But it’s unclear if progressive House members will embrace the new compromise. While the bill addresses House members’ affordability concerns, increases the excise tax thresholds and completely closes the donut hole in Medicare Part D, the legislation does not include a public option, retains the Senate bill’s state-based exchanges and keeps the start date for most reforms at 2014. (Obama’s plan also retains the Senate’s abortion compromise and most other core provisions).
The White House explained that it paid for its changes (which cost approximately $75 billion) by levying higher penalties on individuals and employers that don’t meet the legislation’s requirements, extending the payroll tax to unearned income, $10 billion in fees on branded pharmaceuticals, and increased savings from Medicare Advantage.
The proposal also eliminates the so-called Cornhusker kickback and provides full federal funding for Medicaid expansion for four years starting in 2014. Between 2018 and 2019, the federal government will pay 90% of the cost of the expansion and provide extra funds to states with generous Medicaid programs.
Here is how the Obama plan compares to the House and Senate proposals:
| Provision | Obama’s Bill | House Bill | Senate Bill |
| Affordability | Improves the Senate bill’s subsidies for lower income Americans. Families below $44,000 and above $66,000 would pay less in premiums. Also raises the percent of health costs that are paid by insurers from the Senate proposal. | Families earning below $55,000 would still receive more subsidies under the House bill, but Americans earning more than $55,000 would pay higher premiums (as compared to Obama’s proposal). The percent of costs paid by the insurers is higher than Obama’s proposal. | Families making under $55,000 would see higher premiums than Obama’s proposal and the percent of costs paid for by health insurers is lower than Obama’s proposal. |
| Excise Tax | ‘Labor agreement’ for everyone. Changes effective date of the Senate policy from 2013 to 2018. Raises the amount of premiums that are exempt from the assessment from $8,500 for singles to $10,200 and from $23,000 for families to $27,500 and indexes these amounts for subsequent years at general inflation plus 1 percent. | No excise tax. | 40% excise tax beginning in 2013 on individual polices worth $8,500 or higher and family policies starting at $23,000. |
| Payroll Tax | Adopts Senate bill approach and adds a 2.9% assessment on unearned income. | 5.4% surcharge on high-income households. | Payroll tax increase of 0.9% on earnings above a specific threshold for a total employee assessment of 2.35% on these amounts. |
| Individual Mandate | Mixed bag. May be easier for younger Americans to opt out. Lowers flat dollar amount to $695 by 2016 from the Senate bill and raises the alternative percent of income to House levels that individuals will pay for not having health insurance. Hardship waiver when premiums over 8% of their income, and couples under $18,700 are exempt from the requirement. | 2.5% of income by 2016 with a limit of the average national health premium. | Flat rate of $750 by 2016 and hardship waiver when premiums exceed 8% of income. |
| Employer Mandate | No mandate, free rider provision. Large employers (50+ workers) have to pay a fee if employees receive subsidies. Improves transition to free-rider policy by subtracting first 30 workers. (A firm with 51 workers that does not offer coverage will pay an amount equal to 51 minus 30, or 21 times the applicable per employee payment amount.) | Employer mandate. The House bill requires a payroll tax for employers that do not offer health insurance that meets minimum standards. | No mandate, free rider provision. Large employers have to pay a fee if taxpayers are supporting the health insurance for their workers. |
| Grandfathered plans | Plans have to conform to new regulations. Plans have cover adult dependents up to 26yo, prohibits rescission. After exchanges begin in 2014, plans can’t institute annual and lifetime limits or pre-existing condition exclusions. Beginning in 2018, the President’s Proposal requires “grandfathered” plans to cover proven preventive services with no cost sharing. | “Grandfather” policy that allows people who like their current coverage, to keep it. Abide by all rules after 5 years. | “Grandfather” policy that allows people who like their current coverage, to keep it. |
| Medicare Donut Hole | Completely closes donut hole. Replaces $500 increase threshold increase limit with a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010. Closes donut hole by phasing down the coinsurance so it is the standard 25% by 2020 throughout the coverage gap. | The House bill fully phases out the donut hole over 10 years. Raise the dollar amount before the donut hole begins by $500 in 2010. | The Senate bill provides a 50% discount for certain drugs in the donut hole. Raise the dollar amount before the donut hole begins by $500 in 2010. |
52 Responses to “White House Unveils $950 Billion Health Bill To Bridge Differences Between House And Senate Legislation”
Register
RSSLogin
Wonk Room Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
LEADERSHIP we can count on! Well done, Mr. President!
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:48 amObama’s proposal also doesn’t repeal the anti-trust exemption.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/summary-presidents-proposal.pdf
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:03 amRather a dissapointing cave in to the special interests and the wingnuts, but not unexpected.
Im still holding out hope that once the “bipartisan” summit fails as expected, Democrats will grow a pair and put the public option back in through reconciliation.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:26 amThis is just slightly less smelly crap than the Senate bill. What is wrong with this President?
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:31 amHe is what many of us thought he was, “Mister Go-along-to-get-along”.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:46 amPersonally I think it’s a pretty sound deal. It is a good reform Bill but it’s not an overhaul. We need to make something happen now and this appears to be a great start.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:59 am“This is just slightly less smelly crap than the Senate bill. What is wrong with this President?”
It’s called negotiating. He plays the long game, not the 24-hour news cycle game. The next thing that will happen is, the GOP will stomp their Bruno Magli-clad feet and say “no.”
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:59 amThen, we push a bill through anyway – including the public option.
Does it keep the extension of COBRA in the House bill (section 113)?
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:06 pmThe HOUSE bill permits anyone on COBRA or state-extension of COBRA to continue on their group-rate insurance plan (of course the individual has to pay the premium) until the exchanges start.
That is a huge benefit that is COST FREE for the government because it allows the unemployed, who include many over 50 who CANNOT get insurance in the marketplace because of pre-existing conditions, to continue coverage.
To those who criticize this bill, you are now and always will be the problem with America today, an impatient generation with no appreciation that Rome was not built in a day! Perhaps it is better to have no health care reform than have a starting point. You are the worst kind of people to have in a team trying to solve problems. I do not know if you have heard this saying but here it goes’ “Do not speak or in this case comment if you cannot improve the silence” and I am talking to the honourable Law101 and FrJackHackett, the microwave, I want it now childish trantrumish, my way or the high way, impatient generation!
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:12 pmHere’s a useful fact sheet on the public option.
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:26 pmYes you are right ilnara, we should not EVER criticize the government’s corporate giveaway of our tax dollars to health insurance companies under the guise of health care reform because it’s childish. We should just give the Republicans and health insurance companies everything they want as long as we can pass SOMETHING (sarcasm off).
Rome wasnt built in a day, but this has been dragging on now for over a YEAR! Congress has other important business to attend to and wasting another minute trying to appease the party of No is just that: a waste of time.
We could have been done with this months ago and passed financial regluatory reform had Reid just pulled the trigger on reconciliation back when it became obvious there wasnt going to be any Republican support (a fact which is no less obvious today.)
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:33 pmThe big winner here is the insurance company parasite (aka the Financial Sector). Without antitrust laws, they are free to continue their price-fixing and collusion spree against Americans. And they will drive a truck through the loopholes of anti-rescission just like they did through the pathetic credit card reform bill.
The only interesting aspect of this is the entertaining spectacle of watching insurance companies trying to walk the Republicans back to support this sweetheart deal — after they poisoned the well with their bribes-for-votes and idiot-teabagger-noisemakers. Will they have to pay the wingnuts even more money to do a 180 on this piece of crap corporate takeover/mandate of health care in America? My bet is they will.
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:38 pmilnara@9: “To those who criticize this bill, you are now and always will be the problem with America today…”
And, of course, this attitude is the reason that Americans always get eactly what they deserve — whether it is crap health care, never-ending wars, the highest child-poverty rate in the developed world, or the greatest banana-republic-style middle-class-destroying wealth gap in the free world.
Americans always get what they deserve when citizens carry the STFU attitude about critical thinking.
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:48 pmImpatient generation? There are good and bad, fat and thin, smart and stupid, patient and impatient people in every generation. Why the incessant scapegoating in political commentary?
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:48 pmLaw101 Thank you for your comments, I am interested to know exactly how reconciliation works? Are you saying that the reconciliation process which must be as easy as ABC (sarcasm :-)) should have been used instead of passing the law through congress?
My O My, Senator Reid must not know what he is doing for that matter This president who has been blamed from everything from teleprompter to having it out for Toyota must not understand how to do things right!
Let me make a small observation – Things are never as easy as they appear. If it was that easy, Senator Teddy Kennedy and the progressive democrats would have passed this bill in previous decades.
The world sat back while businesses became superpowers and empires, instead of checking the growth and putting these powers in perspective, they revelled in it and enjoyed the properity it brought with it. Not asking too many questions in case they hit something they did not like.
Now we are all moaning about it cos it has finally come home to roost! Even now the Supreme Court has given them added powers but all I hear from people who should now be in front of the courts daily protesting against their unconstitutional ruling is criticism for a health care that has seen more progress than any other time in history.
I will also make a small correction, healthcare has been discussed for over 50 years in America not 1 year as you stated and this is the closest it has come to being passed.
The country is terrified by government which is absurd, considering that the real enemies are the corporations, because unlike government which looks for common good and prosperity of its citizens, the corporations only look out for a hand full of citizens (wealthy shareholders, patrons and executives).
Yet people who know this are doing nothing to educate their neighbours or families about it.
There has been no challenges or protests in front of all News media that has been systematically undermining the democracy in America, working for their coporate owners or even that Fox News that carries the most distorted News in the world even worse than Iran and China is owned by foreign citizens whose aim might be to facilitate the downfall of the US. No but there are loads of complaints about an imperfect healthcare that has been discussed for over 50 years and is closer to passing more so now than ever before.
The people shouting for reconciliation forget that this process is temporary about 5 or 10 years whereas passing laws through congress is permanent. You should Thank God the president wants permanent or else the way things are going, Sarah Palin might just become president, change the constitution so she can remain in power indefinately and after 5 to 10 years allow the health care bill to expire with the help of these business empires and then we will see where the American people will be then.
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:08 pmWhat is the Obama opening negotiation bid for Exchanges? State-based or National?
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:20 pmI can’t find any reference on the White House website.
And what about the House’s Stupek anti abortion provisions??
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:27 pmI prefer to base my judgments on realistic possibilities, rather than what might happen if Sarah Palin becomes president.
Realistically, the minute people start to see the benefits of the public option, then there will be no political force powerful enough to stop it from becoming permanent.
Thats why the Republicans have been so unified in their opposition from day one. Its not because they fear it will fail, but that it will succeed and they will never be able to get it repealed.
I agree with you 100% that Citizens United was a terrbile decision and we need to pass the Fair Elections Now Act to attempt to reign in corporate spending, but thats not the issue here.
The issue here is that the public does NOT want an individual mandate without a public option.
Lost in the shock over the loss of the Mass Senate seat was the fact that public opinion for health care went down the exact moment the public option was taken out of negotiations.
For months now, polling has shown that a mandate with no public option is an extremely unpopular combination. The annual penalty for failure to comply makes it even more unpopular in swing districts.
I agree with the posters who say that the omission of the public option here is probably just a negotiating tactic, but I cannot see any reason to NOT include the public option since Republicans have already taken themselves completely out of the equation.
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:34 pmI think this is a great start. Is it everything one could have wanted? Maybe not. However nothing gets perfected the first time around. Even the world was created in 7 days…I am however a little befuddled by the number of people who some how think President Obama has a magic wand that can fix all the words problem with one quick tap…talk about unrealistic…
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:46 pmI think the public option is the way to go too. I am just saying that things are never what they seem, you think the power of the corporations is not an issue here but I think it is.
The power of the lobbyist is the reason why public option has been so attacked. Directly and indirectly they have influenced the healthcare bill and until people start to realise this and fight back, it will remain so. No matter who you vote into congress, unless they are so wealthy and can run their campaigns without donations they are one way or the other going to be influenced by corporate money.
Knowing this fact helps the discussion going forward. The democrats might think of citizens more than corporations compared to the opposition but reality is that lots of money is needed to win elections. So until money is removed from politics (which I don’t see how) all I can say is,we must deal with it as conditions on the ground (reality) dictates.
By the way the Sarah Palin addition was an illustration more than anything, pointing out that administrations change and at the moment I can guarantee that the more Republicans get voted in the less likely the wish lists of the democrats will be fulfilled.
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:51 pmThe table was great. However, it did not mention what is most important to me. Are they still going to charge older people more. Fatter people. As an extremely healthy fat person who hasn’t had a medical claim in over 10 years, I am NOT going to pay 3 times more for premiums because insurance companies are greedy and the public has no idea what a risk factor really means.
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:56 pmSo, you don’t like it and I don’t like it. Hope they hurry up and pass it, so we can have a political victory.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:09 pmAre defined benefit pension payments defined to qualify as “unearned income”?
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:13 pmLOL Lashuan That was a great comment! Even the world was created in 7 days. Thank you for that. This is why the opposition’s message carries louder than the democrats. The democrats are busy looking at the glass half empty instead of looking for a way to fill the glass constructively.
Some will even blame this president if their kids do not get As in school. The same people who are moaning about the imperfections of this bill have been here for decades and I never heard or saw their activism for this process.
While the opposition sits back and laughs our so called family members destroy our agenda from within. I guess since the age of Jerry Springer people have forgotten that it is not good to air your dirty linen in public, the only people who seem to remember this are the republicans who seem to be united even when all do not agree.
They always pay off the corporations at the expense of the people while telling the people it is good for them and silence any opposition by calling them traitors. No republican should come close to being at the seat of power again for a verra longggg time if the so called progressives will wise up and learn to fight within closed doors!
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:14 pmWhat is “Legilsation”?
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:24 pmA good debate and nice to see it focus on substance rather than petty name calling which I see on many other blogs. I am British and have only recently taken up American citizenship (both my kids were born here) so I have a deep interest in both health care and the national debt. There are two things though that I feel natural born Americans generally fail to appreciate.
First, is actually how impotent the position of the American president actually is compared to the leaders of other Western democracies. This is in part by design to help prevent against radical change but it serves to make ‘big’ legislative accomplishments hard to achieve regardless of party. This structure, which Obama understands well as a constitutional professor, is however being manipulated by people on both sides to prevent legislation they do not agree with which is why I am sure Obama is focussed on the long term rather than the short term. As such most major reform happens in the US incrementally and so any bill that makes even minor progress should be seen as a victory as it can always, and certainly will be , added to.
Second is the impart that central management of health care can provide. The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. yet pays almost twice as much per capita as many that do, and ranks much lower down the list in outcomes relating to life expectancy, birth rate mortality and so on. Many US pliticians write off the the National Health Care system in the UK as socialized medicine, and quote statistics about waiting lists and cost benefit analysis being done on surgeries. Whilst these examples may be true (elective non-emergency surgeries can take several weeks or months to be scheduled and doctors do make cost benefit decisions around surgeries), this is for non-emergency NHS services only and many middle and upper income people now have PHI (Private Health Insurance) over an above there eligibility for NHS treatment. And the cost to maintain both is still less than the cost of medical insurance in the US without the exclusions, copays and financial limits. I know for sure that I would rather be on a waiting list for my elective surgery than not get it at all, particularly if I know I do not have to wait if I buy medical insurance.
Market run health care on its own does not work but neither does leaving it soley to the government to manage which is why there is a growth in the UK of people buying PHI. A balance between the two needs to be fond and any bill that moves us closer to the middle ground is a step in the write direction in my book, as we can then stop focusing on if we need chnage and start focusing more on just how much.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:50 pmOverwhelmingly the American people favor a bill that benefits working class families over one designed to bring Republicans on board.
Here are the latest poll numbers:
•In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option.
•In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option
•In Washington State, only 38% support the Senate bill, while 65% support the public option.
•In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option.
•In Virginia, only 36% support the Senate bill, while 61% support the public option.
•In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
•In Minnesota, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
•In Colorado, only 32% support the Senate bill, while 58% support the public option.
http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/poll_national_20100220/
You dont need a magic wand to see that putting the public option in the final bill is a no brainer.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:56 pmThanks for your comments buddiesfan. It’s good to get the perspective of someone who has lived under both the NHS and American health care systems.
I couldnt agree more with the approach of balancing private insurance with a government-backed plan and I think that is exactly the balance that the public option is able to strike.
The reform plan without a public option is nothing more than a giant taxpayer donation to the already-bloated health insurance companies so that they can have MORE power and influence over Congress to prevent any real reform from ever taking place.
Universal coverage is a laudable goal to be sure, but without a competitive public plan to force private insurers to control costs, it creates an absurd paradox for lower-income people with no health insurance: Buy coverage you cannot afford or face fines for not having it.
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:06 pmBuddiesfan your perspective is spot on. I have had the NHS experience and even then in the UK I had a PHI to supplement the NHS. Like you observed, the power of the president in the US is somewhat different from those in other western nations. I can also argue that the power of corporations in the US is significantly more in terms of the agressiveness of their overall influence.
Then there is the media that is supposed to inform the population not doing their jobs or should I say they are mostly catering for corporate owners and sensationalism.
I would also argue that if the media had reported the facts as is, corporations and special interests will not now be as influential as they are.
Daylight being the best disinfectant is not working because the people with the touch are only shining the light in areas that will benefit a select group and not for the common good.
The fact that many Americans do not even bother to educate themselves outside the media circus makes it even difficult for them to get truth. They only accept the truth based on who is currently providing an opinion that sounds reasonable not on the reality of what is happening or the truth as it is.
The population explosion in the UK made NHS less sustainable, the government had to cut back and waiting lists became longer however PHIs were there to supplement services not really compete with NHS. Though in some cases they kinda compete I think.
Overall I reckon the public option that may be proposed might not be for all but for a select group within the poverty line. Well we will see but either way I cannot imagine that everyone will be satisfied with the results but at least it is a starting point and later generations hopefully can build on it to “perfect” it.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:02 pmBefore you ask, “what is wrong with this president?” ask what is wrong with your self. So far I’ve only been seeing wingnuts on tv blathering incoherent crap about taxes, teabags and retaking America from the fascist socialist Obamanator. Where are all the counter demonstrations? Why don’t we back him up a little or let our government know we want a public option by holding signs and getting some attention? It would definitely make Obama’s job easier. What I see now is an attempt to get HCR through with hopes of plugging holes in the future.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:21 pmThought I’d just add this in as an after thought…
“And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, then to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:26 pmNiccolo Machiavelli – The Prince
Without a public option, there will be a strong challenge to an Obama re-nomination for 2012. This ridiculously complex effort to re-invent the wheel of public health care is an absurdity unworthy of the promise that he embodied a year ago.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:36 pmTo M Fish. Elections are won on the margins and the truth is (and its sad to say) the average American has no idea what the public option is. Indeed most policy is almost irrelevant because the detail is lost behind the sound bytes and sadly the party with the most compelling slogan or simplest message usually wins. That is why incumbent dissatisfaction is always so high when voters realize the promises that need to be made in order to get elected are usually unrealizable. And let me qualify ‘high’. It is a shift in the electorate of just a few percent which the media likes to characterize as ‘the American people have had there say’. People who understand the policy nuance are not swing voters, nor are they ‘Independent’. So Obama’s reelection will not swing on whether he gets the public option passed. It will depend on how the bill is characterized generally and if he is successful in selling it as an plus to ‘the American people’.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:18 pmKalie: Bravo! I couldn’t say it better myself. Of course, I live in Canada where we take our health care for granted and don’t raise an outcry when some suggest we’d be better off without it! Good luck USA. Hope things improve for you.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:25 pmThis proposal should be Labeled Presidents Obama’s Health Care “R” Bill and the “R” Doesn’t stand for Reform!
2018? WTF? As if nothing will change between now and then and this waste of time will not be modified, if not completely overturned.
Mr President you are exactly as predicted. Another, say anything to get Elected, Do nothing Politician.
Where is the “Reform” in this Toilet paper? You do remember what Toilet Paper is used for, don’t you? Now that somebody does it for you, I see you have forgotten.
How is anything in your proposal going to lower costs?
No Pre-Existing Conditions? I guess the Insurance Companies won’t just say. Sure, we’ll cover you now that we have to. But, your Rate is going to be 40% more then people with out your condition Way to Go Mr President you just Reformed Nothing!.
Why not do what is so simple even a Republican can figure it out?
Everyone who want’s Govt Health Care can have it!
They simply pay $$$$ per year – Pick a reasonable number. One thousand Dollars? Two thousand? Three? What’s it cover? Everything to Keep you healthy, Sorry Plastic Surgeons and other Non – nessessary procedures. They are CASH only.
If you are sick, you go to a USA Sanctioned Doctor and get treated what does it Cost? Nothing or perhaps a small co pay. And who does that Doctor bill? Nobody! Why? Because they work for Uncle Sam!
Why do they work for Uncle Sam? Simple, A guaranteed Salary as long as they do which is based on their Field but is Fair and reasonable. Think 100K to 200K range for the avg. Doctor. Maybe, 40 to 60 for nurses etc… The numbers can be decided and changed as needed. It doesn’t matter
Why would they choose this? – Simple – Free Med, Dental, Nursing etc.. School! As long as they commit to 20 years of Govt. Service!
No Mal Practice Insurance as long as they work for the Govt.
Yes it will take time to rebuild the Supply of Doctors and Nurses, so until then , offer One time Payments to those who want to work for Govt. based on How long they have practiced, Specialty etc… and waver of Mal Practice Insurance once they start working for the Fed.
If Doctors Don’t like the salary structure, Let them Close Down as they always threaten to do ( How much Money do they have that they can quit Medicine altogether, rather then Practice under Existing rules?) or Open up a Cash Only Practice. We’ll see how quick their tails go between their legs and they come running back.
Yes this will, One day Totally Eliminate the Insurance Companies – But Who cares – I say good Riddance!
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:32 pmFor posterities sake you should really add a BLANK fourth column to this comparision chart detailing the the Republican “Plan”.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:03 pmHere’s question for the group… What role should a “market” play in health care? Should an insurance company be able to make a buck off breast cancer? Making money from insurance for elective procedures like breast augmentation, or a face lift, is another matter altogether. Basic health care, on the other hand, (the right to live as a human being – we are not animals in the wild) is a fundamental human right (and a moral responsibility).
I’m not saying “profits” are bad. A not-for-profit model (earnings are invested back into the business and not distributed to share holders) for the pharma industry should be considered by congress. I’m saying We need a public option to remove the profit motive (the share price of corporations) in health care.
That’s what scares the hell out of Republicans.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:05 pmHaving worked as a writer crafting catchy employee benefits brochures for the insurance industry, there is no doubt that the name of the game is– shift all risk to the plan participant. That means you. Having lived in Canada, there is no doubt that national healthcare — or a hybrid system, which would mean a strong US Public option — is better. BETTER BETTER BETTER than the legalized piracy in the US. Take it from someone who has extensively read the plans they try to sell your employers. Obama’s proposal represents a cave-in to the corporate interests who control him. Surprise. Or not really. But, let’s see if anyone comes up with some balls at reconcilation time. Stupak amendment OUT, Public Option IN.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:44 pmWhy didn’t they include the GOP proposals so we can compare against the Dems???
Oh yea, they don’t have one. Their specialty is voting NO.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:35 amWhy can all the other countries – Canada, England, Germany, France, China, etc – provide universal health care for its citizens and the US cannot. Why does the President’s proposal not include a public option or antitrust for the Health Insurance Industry?
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:07 amilnara, interesting that you cite Rome, as this empire is dangerously close to falling just like the Romans. Big government, huge amounts of debt…
I do believe that all should have access to healthcare (consider it an investment in the people like education), not health insurance. That fact seems lost on most critics.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:11 amAll of the people whom I talk with want Health Care Reform. They think Congressional oppositionists (namely Republicans but some Democrats) are being paid off by Insurance and Drug companies. John McCain leads in those contributions. I have never been asked by any poll what I think. I don’t really think the American people are overwhelmingly against health care reform as the Republicans are saying. Republicans were against Medicare and Social Security when passed by Congressional Democrats. Would Americans want to give those up? I don’t think so. Countries that have universal health care would never relinquish it.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:42 am<>
Why not just change it to 2020? 2025? 2050?
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:09 pmLaw101:
You’re comparing apples (the ideal public option in the public’s mind) with oranges (a piece of legislation as it is in practice, warts and all).
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:12 pmWell Done and I just pray it passes! We need health care reform and I don’t believe the majority are against it.
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:17 pmAmericans will not accept any Socialization of their healthcare by government. Get it through your thickhead’s dems. You are ruining our party and driving us into oblivion. The people do not want rationing, waiting lists, and rising costs from government. We also want to choose our own hospitals and doctors please. So much for “choice” right my fellow dems.? How did we let the left loony bins take control?
February 24th, 2010 at 2:09 pmThat was a hefty helping of ideological hyperbole. Any of these three bills will kill private sector jobs (probably planned), grow public sector bureaucracy (definately planned), and provide less access and lower quality of care to all American’s. Ah…the unintended consequences of Rose colored glasses.
February 24th, 2010 at 3:23 pmOh yeah! and, the “universal healthcare” that China gives its 1.5 billion citizens, does that include its millions of political prisoners? and will they extend that to Taiwan when we let them take it back to make up for forgiving our debts to them? I have seen some Chinese rural villages where people looked to be cared for far less than the poorest of poor Americans.
February 24th, 2010 at 3:49 pmThey can cram a 3 trillion dollar bank bail out down our throats in less than 60 days for wall street, that was the biggest rip off in our Countrys History and full of loop holes for the special interest lobbyist representing the banks. BUT NO PUBLIC OPTION!!! after more than a year. No competition for insurance premiuns going thru the ceiling by having an affordable rate goverment option. Now they continue the scam by sugar coating a so called health care reform bill that is more complicated than the tax code and opens up more avenues for the health insurance industries to ripp off main street America. Yet we just continue to watch our elected officials sell out our childrens future with almost a frenzy sarcasim. Wake up people!!!
February 24th, 2010 at 5:53 pmA trillion dollar entitlement? What could possibly go wrong?
February 24th, 2010 at 6:56 pmAs I read the comments about President Teleprompters proposal it became apparant to me that there exist people who really believe that Socialism will work. Kind of like the sign “Communism has only killed 60 million people, lets give it another try”.
I think that a more interesting question is why is every place on the planet, that has socialized medicine, going broke. Canada, England, Japan, Germany are all desperately trying to change their systems before they go belly up.
Why not look around the world and find a country whose medical delivery system is solvent and delivers the kind of health outcomes that people find desireable? Then try that system on a single state to see if it actually works as adveretised?
Sadly, I have not seen any system in the world that works on a large scale. I don’t think that we have a perfect way of doing anything, but I don’t want to make an imperfect system more imperfect and also break the bank on the alter of “Change”.
I know that you are wondering how a conservative could have stumbled on this site, but I did.
I will now stand quietly while you ridicule me, rather than dealing with the substance of my comments. Hopefully you will surprise me with your insightful and polite answers.
February 25th, 2010 at 12:45 pm@ilnara –
“The country is terrified by government which is absurd, considering that the real enemies are the corporations, because unlike government which looks for common good and prosperity of its citizens, the corporations only look out for a hand full of citizens (wealthy shareholders, patrons and executives).
Yet people who know this are doing nothing to educate their neighbours or families about it.”
i suppose people could go and talk to people in cuba or north korea for information, since it seems to have worked out so well for them. i know that when i think of those places i think “common good” and “prosperity”.
i hate to break it to you — but the constitution only guarantees “life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness”, meaning you are responsible for your own happiness and you have to go out and make it happen.
more government is the LAST thing any of us need.
February 25th, 2010 at 4:57 pm