11/6/2009 9:47:00 PM Editorial: Will health bill really help folks?
Well, it's go time.
The House will call a vote today on the $1.05 trillion health care legislation that would cover 36 million uninsured Americans. And this week has given the vote even more pluck. As if $1 trillion worth of health coverage wasn't enough, Republicans carry the momentum of a Tuesday election that saw the party seat governors in New Jersey and Virginia on the virtual eve of a Democrat-sponsored health bill floor vote.
Here's what we like about the bill:
• The new plan makes it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage for health reasons.
• The legislation allows non-citizens to buy private insurance with their own money. It bars them from receiving subsidies or purchasing insurance from the public plan.
• The Congressional Budget Office concludes that the public plan significantly will expand eligibility for Medicaid; substantially reduce the growth of Medicare's payment rates for most services; impose an income tax surcharge on high-income individuals; and reduce the federal budget deficits by $129 billion through 2019.
Here's what we don't like about it:
• Members of Congress continue to receive tax-payer-subsidized, gold-plated benefits packages for themselves while pushing lesser coverage on their fellow Americans.
• A strong public option would let the hand
of government reach too far into yet another industry.
• According to the White House, it requires individuals "who can afford it" to buy insurance in the interests of distributing costs. No specifics exist on what parameters define "who can afford it." And it's still an American's right to remain uninsured.
"Is this bill all that I would want?" Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said last month. "Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls. And I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to take every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time."
Investors are already betting on the big board like a Las Vegas sports book. Fueled by speculation that momentum from the Tuesday gubernatorial races would add to reform opposition, health-care stocks rallied on Wall Street.
There can be no stronger indication that a vote against the bill would have immediate impact - it would make private health care shareholders even more wealthy as the uninsured stay uninsured.
Posted: Sunday, November 08, 2009
Article comment by:
Birther T. Bagur
I think my very favorite part of the healthcare debate is hearing Republicans whine about how they can't possibly read 2000 pages. Last night was exciting. Right before the final healthcare bill vote last night, the Republicans offered another bill in a form known as a "motion to recommit". No one had a chance to read this bill before the R's offered it. Democrat Steny Hoyer noted that he would vote "no" on it in part because Republicans had not offered anyone a chance to read their bill before they offered it (and Republicans always whine about stuff like that). The Republicans freaked out, they were screaming and hissing and crying. It. Was. Epic.
Posted: Saturday, November 07, 2009
Article comment by:
easy brown
if this passes we all loose. private health care, which pays most of the dr. bills will be out of business in ten years. with no money going into the system, except for pennys from the .gov our healthcare system will be on par with cuba. way to go spendocrats!
Posted: Saturday, November 07, 2009
Article comment by:
I object, I object, I object
Can conservatives say or do anything or than I object. The train has left the station gentlemen. Americans have spoken, and they want health care reform, including a public option, and your last minute attempt at defining a position looks foolish by comparison. Your contining objections on the basis of ideology looks almost desperate.
Posted: Saturday, November 07, 2009
Article comment by:
whiterepubvet
Hey, Tom, donkeyburpo didn't call you a clan member or a teabagger or a racist. How'd you win him over?
Posted: Saturday, November 07, 2009
Article comment by:
Again we have thepot calling the kettle black
Steven: Do you never tire of providing your opinion and calling it fact? Talk about a routine lack of honesty.
Posted: Saturday, November 07, 2009
Article comment by:
honkybrujo
Tom, how does it feel to be a 19th century man living in the 21st century? Do you feel kind of lost and lonely, wondering why you are the only one who sees all those Socialist and Communists hiding around every corner. How does it feel to be an anacronism?
Posted: Saturday, November 07, 2009
Article comment by:
Steven Ayres
On behalf of the entire community, I want to thank the unnamed Courier editor for this ringing endorsement of HR3200 and health-care reform.
Oh, I can see that he tried to cover up his enthusiasm with some token objections. But they're so weak that one can only conclude that he's not serious about them.
For example, he says he doesn't "like" the bill because "Members of Congress continue to receive taxpayer-subsidized, gold-plated benefits packages." If the reform passes, most Americans will maintain the same health plans they're on now, although with more security about their coverage, and most corporations will continue to offer the same plans, so Congress isn't special in that regard. It's completely beside the point.
He goes on to warn that "A strong public option would let the hand of government reach too far into yet another industry." Leaving aside that this is nothing more than a vague ideological point, the bill does not include a strong public option. It's really pretty weak. But we can make it stronger later, as it becomes clearer to more voters that we really need it.
His third and strongest point in opposition to the bill is that "it requires individuals 'who can afford it' to buy insurance in the interests of distributing costs. No specifics exist on what parameters define 'who can afford it.'" That would be a tough nut if it were true. Of course, it isn't. "Affordability credits are provided under the House health care reform bill for families with income below 400 percent of the Federal poverty level," says the FAQ from the House Ways and Means Committee.
Always standing up for individual rights, the editor adds that "it's still an American's right to remain uninsured," apparently quoting fine print in the Constitution that only he has seen. But even this is provided in the bill -- if you really don't want to buy coverage, you don't have to. You'll still have to pay a little bit to help support the system that will be your safety net when you get sick anyway, of course. But that's only fair.
So most readers will see that these quibbles are just a paper-thin attempt at balance, covering the editor's clearly unmitigated enthusiasm. We should all thank him.
Posted: Saturday, November 07, 2009
Article comment by:
Tom Steele
The bill is a "smoke and Mirror" package to secure more power for the federal government. No tort reform, coverage for illegals, paid abortions and a timed phase out for your current coverage will be in the final bill. It's ironic that a congress that only workd Tuesdays thru Wednesday will work through the weekend to pass a bill. It shows how much the liberal progressives want more government control. Hopefully, it will die in the U S Senate.
Posted: Saturday, November 07, 2009
Article comment by:
Anon E. Mouse
Actually, Editor, you have no way of knowing whether "shareholders of private health care" will do better or worse. Basing such a statement on today's market, especially a one or two day snap shot of its erratic performance recently, is foolish. The "legislation" Pelosi has produced is the best case in favor of doing nothing. The Declaration of Independence is 1 page. The U.S. Constitution is 4 or 5 pages. The Gettysburg address is similarly brief. Why do we need 2000 pages of legalese to "improve" our health care industry? The answer is we don't need those 2000 pages of legalese to improve health care. Why not start with removing legal barriers to insurance companies offering health insurance policies on a nationwide basis (like auto insurance) and cap pain and suffering damages recoverable in a medical malpractice suit to $250,000? This would only require the elimination of current restrictions (in the case of health insurance coverage across state lines) and removal of an incentive for lawyers to exploit the emotions of juries in medical malpractice cases. Stop the madness!
