Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on March 22, 2010 By Draginol In Politics

People tend to project their hopes and dreams onto things based on their name.

They hear “health care reform” and they see their ideological allies supporting it and they assume it does all kinds of magical things.

For those of you glad that the bill passed, be aware that what was passed resembles nothing like what is in Europe or Canada. 

Here’s what it does (you can read the details at CBS News):

1. It “provides” insurance to 30 million Americans. How does it do this? They made it illegal not to buy insurance. Voila.  Seriously. That’s how they did it. If you don’t, you’re fined $695 annually.

2. They make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. So the person with basic math skills who figures out that $695 annually is a lot less than $6,000 annually ($500 X 12 months) can wait until they get pregnant, diagnosed with diabetes or gets into an accident and THEN buy insurance.  Thus the cost will go far up.

3. They provide subsidies to make insurance cheaper. In theory.  Since the insurance companies are barely regulated monopolies per state who now know they everyone has to buy insurance, they can raise rates (this is what happened with car insurance when it became mandatory).

The right-wingers are going crazy about it because it socializes health-care.  The left-wingers are currently happy because they don’t realize just how much they got screwed. If/when this program starts to get implemented, I think they’ll start to realize how badly they got screwed.

People on the Internet who are from overseas tend to have no real understanding of America’s healthcare system. They don’t realize that the poor already get medical coverage for free (Medicaid) and that the elderly already get medical coverage (Medicare). 

So in effect, all this bill really does is make it illegal to not have insurance. 

Maybe they should use the same system to eliminate poverty. Just make it illegal to be poor.


Comments (Page 1)
on Mar 22, 2010

So in effect, all this bill really does is make it illegal to not have insurance.

That is the best summary of the bill I have seen!  I wish everyone would read that.  But most will not (and the few that have read the 2000+ page bill are not in congress).

Since the government money does not kick in until 2014, that means that many insurance companies will be pulling out (since they will not be able to afford the increased liability you describe above).  So by the time the government subsidies kick in, the government will be hauling in a ton of money (fines), insuring about 80+% of the people, and the care will be worse (the only way to make up the loss for the remaining insurance companies is to cut coverage).  Plus we already know the biggest denier of health care is the Feds.

So all the liberals have gotten is to kill health care.  As you noted, this bill is not about health care, but Healh Insurance.  In a few years, you will be hard pressed to find quality in either area.  Well, not the very wealthy, but the remaining 95% of the population.

on Mar 22, 2010

Yes good summary indeed, Brad.

on Mar 22, 2010

1. It “provides” insurance to 30 million Americans. How does it do this? They made it illegal not to buy insurance. Voila.  Seriously. That’s how they did it. If you don’t, you’re fined $695 annually.

2. They make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions

In that case why are so many people opposed so completely/ideologically to it? The second point is a very good one (providing companies are still free to charge such people appropriate rates) since it helps increase competition and choice for such people. As for the first one, people without insurance get insurance provided by the state, by taxing everyone else (but only covering the most basic healthcare, i.e. emergancy healthcare). So if the government was to force all such people to get insured, all they're doing is making sure those people are no longer getting a free ride at everyone elses expense - i.e. making people more responsible for their own actions. The only issue I then see is over the minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage you need - should it just cover such emergancy care, or should it cover more than that? I wouldn't call such differences as great as has been made out though.

 

So if this is the case, why does it seem like neither side can find any form of consensus on anything regarding this? I could understand if one side was proposing government provided healthcare since that would be an ideological split between whether the state should provide something via taxation or if it should be left to individuals/the market.

As to point 3/the subsidies, it'd probably depend more on the specifics, although if everyone is having to get insurance there isn't any point in having subsidies provided to insurance companies, since the main point of a subsidy on a good/service is to encourage people to consume it, but they're already going to be as a result of it being mandatory.

on Mar 22, 2010

So if this is the case, why does it seem like neither side can find any form of consensus on anything regarding this?

Unlike Abortion, there is a great deal of room for consensus.  The problem is Obama never tried it.  There are many things to reform, but it was never the intention of the democrats to reform, only mandate (that is all this is - not reform, but a mandate).

 

on Mar 22, 2010

Don't forget that the penalty for the insurance companies for denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions is only $1500, unless they've updated that number in the past few months.  Everyone can likely determine the effectiveness of that incentive on their own.

on Mar 22, 2010

So if the government was to force all such people to get insured, all they're doing is making sure those people are no longer getting a free ride at everyone elses expense - i.e. making people more responsible for their own actions. The only issue I then see is over the minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage you need - should it just cover such emergancy care, or should it cover more than that? I wouldn't call such differences as great as has been made out though.

I think you missed the point. Some poeple will have to get either insurace they pay for or one provided by the Gov't. Or they will be fined. If you get insurance you pay for you'll be fine, but if you cant afford it and your comapny does not provide it, you get stuck with Govt assistance which having been there myself leaves a lot to be desired. Still it's something vs nothing. The point is though, as an American, you should have the right to chose whether you wnat insurance or not. The consequences are your responisibility. This bill takes that away putting responsibility solely on the tax payers if this person gets Gov't assistance.

on Mar 22, 2010

Lets not forget who will be enforcing these fines.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/IRS_Power_Report.pdf

 

Just some highlights:

IRS agents verify if you have “acceptable” health care coverage 

IRS has the authority to fine you up to $2,250 or 2 percent of your income (whichever is greater) for failure to prove that you have purchased “minimum essential coverage” 

IRS can confiscate your tax refund  

IRS audits are likely to increase   

IRS will need up to $10 billion to administer the new health care program this decade 

IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes from Americans 

Nearly half of all these new individual mandate taxes will be paid by Americans earning less than 300 percent of poverty ($66,150 for a family of four)  

 

***SPECIAL EXEMPTION*** 

Democrats prohibit the IRS from imposing these taxes and penalties on illegal immigrants 

 

on Mar 22, 2010

So in effect, all this bill really does is make it illegal to not have insurance. 

Which by itself I think is an excellent idea. But with a penalty much lower than the cost of health insurance, it becomes a farce.

No check for pre-existing conditions is excellent, but it only works if everyone really has to buy insurance (i.e if the penalty were not lower than the price of insurance). If the only choices were between insurance companies, it would be a level playing field again (but the price of insurance would go up for everyone which I have no problem with).

Obviously the insurance market would have to be made more liberal (in the original sense of the word). Only then would the no-check rule really create a level playing field. In the current system it's screwed up.

IOW I am for a healthcare system as advocated by the left but I completely disagree with this bill which doesn't seem to implement the system it claims it would.

 

on Mar 22, 2010

When I was a kid a made an honest mistake on my tax return and owed the IRS some money, I would have preferred owing money to the Mafia. The IRS getting expanded powers is one of the most troubling aspects of this, but the shredding of our constitution, the backroom deals and corruption, and the closed door sessions where corruptocrats bolted themselves away to decide what was best for all of us without asking is what burns me the most. 

on Mar 22, 2010

Personally I think this bill sucks. I would far prefer something like Alan Grayson's Medicare Buy-In bill.

However even if the Senate does not pass HR 4872, the Reconcillation Act of 2010, the current bill accomplishes one thing which is the camels nose is finally in the tent. And although I'm sure it will take many more years and many more battles, the outcome is inevitable, the best you can do is to delay as you've done for so many years but sooner or later there will be single payer health care in this country and there is no thing that you can do to stop it.

You should read the Waterloo article by David Frum who is someone I'm sure most folks here are quite familiar with.

Here's a few clips to chew on.

"A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

"Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?"


The Democrats bent over backwards every step of the way looking for any sign of bipartisanship but none was forthing and after over a year of waiting enough is enough. The Democrats negotiated out the public option with themselves in the mere hope of one Republican vote from Snowe. The Republicans dragged their feet every step of the way and made it totally clear that there was no consensus to be had. Any pretense of bipartiisanship was merely a delying tactic to fight it tooth and nail, water it down at every opportunity, put up every legislative roadblock possible and in the end vote against it. If the Republicans had any real concern about healthcare reform then they had at least 4 years with the presidency and majorities in both houses to do something about it but they chose not to.

If it wasn't for two facts I would hate this bill. The first is I don't hate this bill because *you* do, but the more important reason I support this bill even if for an interim of time it costs me more is the same reason that you hate it which is that we both realize that the camels nose is in the tent and you're never going to stop it from getting fully inside the tent.

A sad day for you.

"We said the wealth would trickle down!"

"And they believed us!"


Turnabout is fair play.

on Mar 22, 2010

Mumblefratz
Turnabout is fair play.

Yes, I can see where you think screwing 200 million americans is fair play.

There was one difference between 2001 and 2009.  In 2001, Bush listened to democrats.  In 2009, democrats (especially obama) did not listen to republicans.  So your fair play is screw them once, screw them twice, and screw them one more time.

yep, that is the MF we have all come to know.

on Mar 22, 2010

yep, that is the MF we have all come to know.
Amazing. You read my entire post including the link to the referenced article in 4 minutes and 39 seconds.

But then again you probably didn't need to read much other than see who posted the reply and the line you quoted.

In 2009, democrats (especially obama) did not listen to republicans.
Bull. The democrats (especially obama) were begging for any sign of support. What were they supposed to listen for, *no* votes?

The blue dogs were looking for any kind of excuse to back out and make it as weak as possible all they needed was the slightest sign of Republican support and they would have negotiated anything you wanted just so they could say "well we tried to put in the public option but those mean old Republicans wouldn't let us".

The difference between 2001 and 2009 is that 10 Democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts whereas not one single Republican voted for any aspect of healthcare.

But in the end I really don't care what you think. Have a nice day.

on Mar 22, 2010

You read my entire post including the link to the referenced article in 4 minutes and 39 seconds

One second is enough for me. It usually begins and ends at "Mumblefratz"

on Mar 22, 2010

34 democrats also voted against this so-called healthcare bill.  It doesn't have to be repealed, because it will just be overturned in the courts as it's un-Constitutional.

on Mar 22, 2010

I see the resident socialist came out from the safety of his controlled blog to gloat in the open blogs, how refreshing.

Meta
Views
» 6203
Comments
» 163
Category
Sponsored Links