The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

bamabbwsub -> The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 5:30:34 PM)

I searched to see if anyone else had posted it, and I couldn't find it, so...

For those of you who would like to read the entire bill (1018 pages of it), here it is:

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

I personally think that Americans should educate themselves on how this bill actually works and what it will really do, rather than reading about things online that may not have any basis in truth.

However, the bill is so cumbersome -- referencing back and forth to various paragraphs -- that it's virtually unintelligible unless you have the time, or make the time, to go back to each referenced paragraph and re-read it. I got to about page 265 before my eyes started crossing. There is NO WAY that the Congresspeople reading this can have any true idea about how the national healthcare system will work, based upon the document alone. Do we really believe that every member of Congress, even if they read the entire bill, really understands what it says??

And, perhaps people on this board who are more intelligent (and have more time) than I, will explain to me why this bill still refers to co-pays, sliding scales of responsibility, etc. To me, based on what I've read so far, this doesn't seem to be anywhere close to the national health care system as I understand it to be in Canada and Great Britain.

Please enlighten me...after reading the document, please!! Let the debate begin. [8D]



Arpig -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 5:46:57 PM)

The health care reform in the US was never intended to create anything like the Canadian or British systems. That option was discarded right from the get go. The aim is to find some way of allowing the private insurance companies to continue to make their huge profits while making sure everybody in the US has some sort of health coverage. Personally I think this is a half measure at best and will result in an overly cumbersome system that does nothing to reduce the waste and expense or abuses of the present system. It will entail the government assuming the expenses of a public insurance scheme without allowing any of the savings that such a scheme can produce. I have said it before and I will say it again, this present bill is an absolute shambles, any system that retains the dominance of the private insurance industry is a waste of time, money and effort.
The US is squandering  a great opportunity to get it right,but unfortunately the Congress has been bought lock, stock, and barrel by the lobbyists and have gutted the bill of any real usefulness.



DomKen -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 5:49:34 PM)

That bill isn't a proposal for a national single payer health care program. Assuming it didn't change greatly last week its mostly a health insurance industry reform bill. There should be language establishing a public option insurance program, a federal government operated health insurance open to those who aren't offered at least a minimum level of health insurance by their employees.



TreasureKY -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 5:52:17 PM)

Silly girl... don't you know?  It's no longer "health care reform"; it's now "health insurance reform".

I believe this article, "Obama Trims Sails on Health Reform", help to explain why.

Guided by polls, the administration intends to emphasize insurance market reforms -- prohibiting practices that have made buying coverage impossible or excessively expensive for many who are sick, older or had a prior illness...

... Speaking of the 100 members of the Senate, White House health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle said: "I could get 100 votes" on the insurance changes being touted by Obama. If Congress enacted only the insurance provisions, it would still represent a significant achievement, though far less than the broad overhaul many expect.



bamabbwsub -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 5:52:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

The health care reform in the US was never intended to create anything like the Canadian or British systems. That option was discarded right from the get go. The aim is to find some way of allowing the private insurance companies to continue to make their huge profits while making sure everybody in the US has some sort of health coverage.



Thanks, Arpig. I will freely confess that I wasn't aware of that. When one hears the phrase "national healthcare system," it brings to mind (at least to *my* mind) the existing systems in Britain, Canada, and other countries.



bamabbwsub -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 5:55:11 PM)

quote:

Silly girl... don't you know? It's no longer "health care reform"; it's now "health insurance reform".


LOL! Obviously, I can't keep up! [:D]

That helps to make more sense of the bill as it's written. And I definitely DID read a statement that would prohibit insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. I think that's a good thing.



bamabbwsub -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 5:57:17 PM)

quote:

There should be language establishing a public option insurance program, a federal government operated health insurance open to those who aren't offered at least a minimum level of health insurance by their employees.


Either I haven't gotten that far in my reading yet, or the language is so convoluted that I skipped right over it. I'm thinking the former, though, since the first section seems more focused on defining terms and discussing what I now understand is actually "health insurance" reform.



Arpig -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 5:57:37 PM)

quote:

And I definitely DID read a statement that would prohibit insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. I think that's a good thing.
Oh I am sure they will offer such coverage,but will anybody be able to afford it is the question.



bamabbwsub -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 6:03:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

And I definitely DID read a statement that would prohibit insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. I think that's a good thing.
Oh I am sure they will offer such coverage,but will anybody be able to afford it is the question.



And THAT is missing (so far) from the bill -- what will it cost to those covered by private insurance? The government's initial cost is defined:

(from p. 120)

(2) START-UP FUNDING.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—In order to provide for the establishment of the public health insurance option there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $2,000,000,000.




bamabbwsub -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 6:07:22 PM)

And additional info:

(from p. 859-860)

SEC. 2002. PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTMENT FUND.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF FUNDS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a fund to be known as the ‘‘Public Health Investment Fund’’ (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Fund’’).
(2) FUNDING.—
(A) There shall be deposited into the Fund—
(i) for fiscal year 2010, $4,600,000,000;
(ii) for fiscal year 2011, $5,600,000,000;
(iii) for fiscal year 2012, $6,900,000,000;
(iv) for fiscal year 2013, $7,800,000,000;
(v) for fiscal year 2014, $9,000,000,000;
(vi) for fiscal year 2015, $9,400,000,000;
(vii) for fiscal year 2016, $10,100,000,000;
(viii) for fiscal year 2017, $10,800,000,000;
(ix) for fiscal year 2018, $11,800,000,000; and
(x) for fiscal year 2019, $12,700,000,000.

(B) Amounts deposited into the Fund shall be derived from general revenues of the Treasury.




TreasureKY -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 6:08:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bamabbwsub

LOL! Obviously, I can't keep up! [:D]

That helps to make more sense of the bill as it's written. And I definitely DID read a statement that would prohibit insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. I think that's a good thing.


Don't feel bad... I suspect most people have a hard time keeping up.  It's no wonder there are so many out there who believe that they've been promised free or inexpensive government health care. 

I believe this break-neck speed with which this administration has been trying to push this reform is one of the main reasons why a lot of conservatives are frustrated... things are moving way too fast and it would seem even our legislators can't keep up.  When you consider that the ultimate time line being looked at is five years out, it makes you wonder why they can't slow down and take maybe a few more months to make sure they get it right?

And yes, I agree... new legislation to reform and regulate health insurance is greatly needed.  I'll be the first to admit that the health insurance industry is way out of control.



bamabbwsub -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 6:24:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

I believe this break-neck speed with which this administration has been trying to push this reform is one of the main reasons why a lot of conservatives are frustrated... things are moving way too fast and it would seem even our legislators can't keep up.  When you consider that the ultimate time line being looked at is five years out, it makes you wonder why they can't slow down and take maybe a few more months to make sure they get it right?



I absolutely agree with this, and I personally think that that's why so many people are up in arms about it (in addition to being grossly uninformed and subject to all kinds of misinterpretations and outright lies). Although the government is notorious for taking forever and a day to get things done, health care or health insurance reform is too important to speed through.



awmslave -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 6:50:08 PM)

I see the US government  health care "reform" initiative as an attempt to allow for more people access to health care. As such it is a positive move. Considering the cost poor will get it as a benefit (at the extra expense of others) as they do not have the resources to pay for it. The last seems to be the reason for the current protests (nobody wants to give away what they got)..
If the initiative was a genuine reform it should start from recognizing the basic facts as this: http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13932149
US can not afford much more spending for health care. Obviously, there is no need to add any spending into the system but people currently in health care business have to give away part of their profits and salaries (it includes bureaucracy, doctors, nurses technicians etc...). I do not see how it could be possible in US under the current system. This is why genuine health care reform in the US is impossible.



Arpig -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 8:37:00 PM)

quote:

I believe this break-neck speed with which this administration has been trying to push this reform is one of the main reasons why a lot of conservatives are frustrated... things are moving way too fast and it would seem even our legislators can't keep up. When you consider that the ultimate time line being looked at is five years out, it makes you wonder why they can't slow down and take maybe a few more months to make sure they get it right?
My feelings exactly Treasure. Once this passes, the chances of revisiting the issue in the foreseeable future are slim to none, so it really does make sense to do it right. That, however, is where I suspect we differ, what is the right way to do it.



popeye1250 -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 10:22:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

The health care reform in the US was never intended to create anything like the Canadian or British systems. That option was discarded right from the get go. The aim is to find some way of allowing the private insurance companies to continue to make their huge profits while making sure everybody in the US has some sort of health coverage. Personally I think this is a half measure at best and will result in an overly cumbersome system that does nothing to reduce the waste and expense or abuses of the present system. It will entail the government assuming the expenses of a public insurance scheme without allowing any of the savings that such a scheme can produce. I have said it before and I will say it again, this present bill is an absolute shambles, any system that retains the dominance of the private insurance industry is a waste of time, money and effort.
The US is squandering  a great opportunity to get it right,but unfortunately the Congress has been bought lock, stock, and barrel by the lobbyists and have gutted the bill of any real usefulness.




Arpig, I think you nailed it!
The only "savings" would come from getting insurance cos. out of the healthcare business and seperate them from the massive profits that are in it.
I worked in the insurance industry and the profits (are) huge in that business.
All that billions in profit isn't providing any medical care, is it?



DomKen -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/8/2009 10:27:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I believe this break-neck speed with which this administration has been trying to push this reform is one of the main reasons why a lot of conservatives are frustrated... things are moving way too fast and it would seem even our legislators can't keep up.  When you consider that the ultimate time line being looked at is five years out, it makes you wonder why they can't slow down and take maybe a few more months to make sure they get it right?

You're way too smart to not know why this has to be finished quickly.

Simply put the window of opportunity to do this ends when the year ends. We've all seen the lies spread about this, living will counseling being morphed into involuntary euthenasia for instance, so no Congressperson wants to campaign next year with this bill still under debate or having only recently passed.

The sooner this gets done and people start benefiting from the plan the better both for the economic and actual health of the nation and for the Congresspeople brave enough to buck the deep pocket lobbies and the threats of mob violence.



MmeGigs -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/9/2009 7:12:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
Once this passes, the chances of revisiting the issue in the foreseeable future are slim to none, so it really does make sense to do it right. That, however, is where I suspect we differ, what is the right way to do it.


I'm more in the "do something now and fix it later" camp. There is definitely a need for speed. If a health care bill isn't passed before the election season gets rolling early next year, I think it's likely that it won't be passed at all and they'll have to start over after the 2010 election. Public support is already waning, and no incumbent will want to be tied to an unpopular bill during election season. The Dems are most likely going to lose some seats in 2010 - the President's party usually does in the mid-term elections - which will make it even tougher to get a bill on the table that provides universal coverage.

There's no agreement on what is the right way to do this, nor will there ever be. I doubt that any of the congressfolk who have been working on the bill are completely happy with what's in it. As Calvin says, "A good compromise leaves everyone mad." We need to start somewhere, though, and soon, because the situation isn't getting any better.



servantforuse -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/9/2009 7:53:24 AM)

All we have to do now is get the members of congress to read their own bill. So far 7 of 100 senators have actually read it. As far as the house, I doubt very much that very few of their 435 members have read it, or intend to read it. After all, they have their own plan and won't use this one.



DomKen -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/9/2009 8:09:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

All we have to do now is get the members of congress to read their own bill. So far 7 of 100 senators have actually read it. As far as the house, I doubt very much that very few of their 435 members have read it, or intend to read it. After all, they have their own plan and won't use this one.

In actuality there isn't yet a bill in front of the Senate to read so complaining that only those Senators who are actually engaged in writing the bill have read it is ridiculous.

The House bill, linked above, is over 1000 pages and quite dense. Skimming it just to be able to say that the Congressperson had read it is a waste. What should happen as happens with all major bills is the member's staff will break it into different pieces and read it in detail so the member can get an executive summary and will have someone familiar with every section available to answer more detailed questions.



FirmhandKY -> RE: The Actual Proposed Health Care Bill for the US (8/9/2009 9:31:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

All we have to do now is get the members of congress to read their own bill. So far 7 of 100 senators have actually read it. As far as the house, I doubt very much that very few of their 435 members have read it, or intend to read it. After all, they have their own plan and won't use this one.

In actuality there isn't yet a bill in front of the Senate to read so complaining that only those Senators who are actually engaged in writing the bill have read it is ridiculous.

The House bill, linked above, is over 1000 pages and quite dense. Skimming it just to be able to say that the Congressperson had read it is a waste. What should happen as happens with all major bills is the member's staff will break it into different pieces and read it in detail so the member can get an executive summary and will have someone familiar with every section available to answer more detailed questions.

So ... you admit that the current plans are both incomplete and too difficult to read and understand ... yet it must be passed immediately?

Firm



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625