Sen Snowe moved, by her vote, the finance committee bill onto the next level of negotiations…..what are you fools cheering about?
Snowe’s vote did NOTHING to further the health bill reform other than moving it out of committee….what part of that is something to cheer? It has NOTHING in it that would cover the uninsured other than some pale BS about competition, but the bill does not even do that….the bill is just exactly what the insurance companies wanted. They retain their massive profits and in turn will have access toi millions more customers. In simpler words, it is NOT reform at all, but rather something I said months ago…a TWEAK!
Snowe’s arguments summarized a growing consensus among Democrats on Capitol Hill – and Republicans no longer in office – that a flawed bill that starts to overhaul the system is better than no bill at all.
Her vote gives political cover to moderate Democrats, puts Republicans on the defensive and gives Senate leaders the latitude to find 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster, rather than force health care legislation through the Senate with a special partisan procedure.
If you are one of those, like many citizens and many doctors that wanted a public option to be part of any reform, then you have NOTHING to cheer.
The Senate Finance Committee bill
Who’s covered: An estimated 94 percent of Americans. Illegal immigrants would not receive benefits.
Cost: $829 billion over 10 years.
How it’s paid for: Fees on insurance companies, drugmakers, medical device manufacturers. Additional tax levied on insurance companies. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. A fee on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums.
Individual mandate: Everyone must get coverage through an employer or on their own. Exemptions for economic hardship. The bill requires individuals and families to buy coverage if it costs no more than 8 percent of their income.
Employer mandate: Not required to offer coverage, but companies with more than 50 full-time workers would pay a fee if the government subsidizes employees’ coverage.
Insurance restrictions: No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. No higher premiums allowed for pre-existing conditions or gender. Limits on higher premiums based on age and family size. Limits on allowable co-pays and deductibles.
Changes to Medicaid: Income eligibility levels standardized to 133 percent of poverty ($30,000 a year for a family of four) for all parents, children and pregnant women. Childless adults making up to 133 percent of poverty ($14,400 for an individual) would be eligible for the first time. The expansion would be delayed until 2014.
This is not something to cheer…this was just a political move to give cover to those Blue Dogs that want to be part of the conversation….
There is a distinct odor of compromise….TWEAKING not reforming…just what the insurance companies were hoping for…that is why they spend millions putting congress people in their pockets.
And then there was the threat of premium increases, the newest threat from the insurance companies….but think about that……if they get their way with the reforms they will have a free reign to do that anyway…..so that was BS from the word GO. BTW, they have already said that the increases next year would be sizable.
Related
I too agree it’s not something to cheer. I agree in your premise that “that a flawed bill that starts to overhaul the system is better than no bill at all” is junk. However, I believe the solution is different than where you are looking to.
I don’t think many Americans believe our current system is perfect, and that some changes are needed. Where many people differ, is the solution. Personally, I believe the public option is an accident waiting to happen. The theory behind is may be nice, but we really can’t point to the government as any consistent source of efficiency or honesty. But what keeps businesses honest? Two things: Regulation and competition. The problem is many of our regulations are costing the insured big bucks, and forcing competition out. We need to enforce strict standards, but allow businesses and people to look nationwide for coverage, not just within the state. Also allowing an easier way to pool resources between businesses to allow for cost savings. If we can add insurance options, naturally, prices will have to come in line.
Additionally, I’d love to see tort reform. According to the CBO, tort reform could save $54 billion. Yes, with cost savings, insurers are bound to pocket some of the money, but with increased competition, if they don’t lower the prices to the consumer, some competitor will eat their lunch.
I think we need to look at adjustments, and not overhaul. We do overall have a good system, but it could DEFINITELY be improved. But everything in moderation is a good policy!
Loudelf thanx for stopping by…..we could debate all the points…but I believe that I read somewhere that tort problems are about 1% of the total problem….we could also look at the VA..it is a government run health thing and it seems to be run very well…at least that is the reports…..competition would be a great thing but I think under the current proposals that would be a small part and virtually ineffective……the insurance industry has a monopoly and there is NO competition as it stands now….yes we need competition….A tweak of the system would benefit some but not all…I recently wrote a thing about tweaking or reforming…….I will agree that the cash needed would be large…but in my opinion, I would rather see it spent on Americans and not on some foreign shore….
Good comment and I always enjoy a good debate……thanx….
I agree that the system needs to be reformed. But this is not reform, this just Big Brother taking over your life.
indyfromaz.wordpress.com
Hello indy and I appreciate your input…so far of all the so called proposals…most are a tweaking of a system not reform……Big Brother has invaded every corner of life…we either let them do it here or tell them to get out of our lives completely and by completely I mean…no more abortion stuff…no more religious stuff…no more…it is All in or All out….
I hate to say it because I do believe that healthcare is one of the things that government should at least manage, but I do agree with the principle of government getting the hell out of our lives and that’s where Obama and I part company, much as I respect his intentions.
I am one of those liberals that all hate….I see where the government could get involved in the right things but instead they bailout those with lots of cash…..MSNBC has help raise $1 million to help fund free health clinics in about 4 cities….we need real health care in this country……the debt thing is a non starter…it was not important in 2002 and 2004…but now it is somehow all the rage when the people are the ones that are getting the cash, well possibly getting.