Cheers:
- Preexisting conditions will be covered;
- Expands coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured;
- People will not have to declare bankruptcy for medical reasons;
- Children covered by parents through age 26.
Jeers:
- Back-room deals made to get the bill passed;
- Mandated insurance premiums or fines for folks not wanting coverage;
- Increase in taxes (I am opposed to expanded taxation - even for the rich);
- $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.
I counter each of your cheers by saying that those cheers coming at the cost of a government mandate negates the cheer.
ReplyDeleteSame cheers as you. The jeer is the mandate without the public option. I have no problem with forcing people to buy health care coverage (as long as they can afford it). But, I do have a problem with the windfall for the insurance industry. Health insurance stocks are up on the day after the bill passed. Not a great sign.
ReplyDeleteI saw an article by a Republican on how the Republicans can recover from their Waterloo (his word not mine). There were some good ideas in there. Maybe now Republicans will put forth some serious proposals that will make this bill even better.
Good list, Bob. I think I could live with whatever choice was made, because I know my opinion is just that and not much more. I believe strongly in helping those that need it - and I don't mind doing it in mandatory fashion.
ReplyDeleteI was just disappointed. It was not "change" - maybe it's a new thing, but it was accomplished in the same old way. My hope was that this executive branch would really be what it had presented itself to be. I feel they presented the front of change, but lacked the patience to carry it through. So when it came down to their own idea of crunch-time, the old way of politics was relied upon, more blatantly than I would have ever suspected. Could it have been put to rest, send the Congress home to talk to constituents, and then revisited when Congress reconvened? I never understood the rush for such a monumental decision. Seems like they signed a contract with a lit of blank lines in it for the sake of time. Judge Judy always says that's stupid... I know, immature idealism, right?
On the other side, I now hear Republicans saying it's time to take up arms and get our government back under our control. Stupid.
Anyway, I think it bites that one can't be supportive AND cautious.
Nice list Bob!
ReplyDeleteJust curious, do you have a problem with mandated auto insurance too? Right now, people without insurance who show up at the ER in a true emergency get treated, and you and I pick up the bill for that. Seems like either we accept that status quo, or let people die in front of us, or hold individuals responsible for carrying their own weight.
No problem with mandated auto liability insurance Ed but I do not know of a state that mandates collision insurance.. also do not know of states that mandate life insurance.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a balance between government mandates and individual freedoms.. not sure where that balance is though. It does seem that in the last 100 years we have become more and more dependent on government services. Maybe that is the cost of living in a compassionate country like ours.
I do find it interesting that the unfunded Medicare Rx plan of the Bush years did not get the conservative outrage that we are witnessing these days.
@Missy - I so agree with what you said about change.
ReplyDeleteI'll say ditto to Brian's points above. I'm so happy we got something, but wish it was more!
ReplyDeleteWell....I like your cheers and jeers and have the same ones.
ReplyDeleteI mourn with the complacency of people that abdicate their responsibility and those of others in exchange for some security. That is all well in good if you want it, but that is not what our country is about. The idea of "forcing" is sickening. And I certainly screamed at Bush for his ballooning of the government.
ReplyDelete@jrchaard - As we have discussed before the abdication of responsibility came way before the government got involved in this sort of stuff.. in a sense that abdication opened a door for government involvement.
ReplyDeleteObama was against mandates before he was for them:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0hcDtu1l6Y
MTR: And many Republicans were for mandates before they were against them...
ReplyDeleteIn any case, it's impossible to manage cost control without everyone being in the risk pool. Well, I suppose it is partially possible if we are willing to accept denying treatment to those who don't carry insurance, but even that wouldn't help control costs too much. Mandates are a necessary fix (I would have liked to see a public option too),
Actually, we do mandate a form of life insurance: Social Security (It's also a mandated retirement coverage plan).
Considering the year-long resitance to reform from the GOP, the insurance companies and conservative PACs, I am amazed that we got anything through Congress. Do you also support the GOP leaders who are calling for Health Care Reform "repeal and replace?"
ReplyDeleteYour concern for the Rich is especially touching and I'm sure that the Rich appreciate it - especially the hedge fund managers that earned more than $1 billion each in 2009 and only paid a capital gains tax, the rate of which is lower than the tax rate on regular income. The highest paid fund manager earned $4 billion last year from his investments in the banks that the taxpayers bailed out. Please remember that Bush's tax cuts cost this country 3 times what Health Care Reform, excluding savings, is expected to cost.