![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Question: What's Left Good in the Bill?
Dec. 17th, 2009 12:01 pmDusty Rhodes, a casual acquaintance from a Usenet group back in the day and a generally good fellow, has burned out on people, well, like me, who don't like where healthcare reform has gone:
Well, let's see.
Universal coverage - lost.
Competition against the health insurance conglomerate - lost.
State regulations on insurance - repealed under the current Senate bill.
Prohibition on annual cap on medical benefits - lost.
Prohibition on charging more for pre-existing conditions - lost.
Prohibition of denial of coverage for specific procedures - never even thought of.
Individual mandate (i. e. "When being uninsured is outlawed, only outlaws won't be insured") - in from the start, and shows no signs of leaving.
Reform of malpractice liability - never seriously considered.
Reform of pharmaceutical industry - taken off the table by Obama at the start.
Reform of hospital overcharging and overtesting - considered only for Medicare members.
Reform of doctor overcharging and overtesting - considered only for Medicare members.
Prohibition on the noncompetitive practice of paying generic drug companies not to compete with brand-name drugs - never even considered.
So- what we have is a bill that does absolutely nothing to lower the cost of actual healthcare, does nothing to lower the cost of insurance- indeed, allows insurance costs to rise twice as fast per year as it currently does- does nothing to stop the insurance corporations from selling "Neverpay" policies (and indeed repeals state regulations, making it even easier for them)... and then forces all Americans to buy these policies, with no guarantee whatever that it will be affordable or that the policies will actually pay off if we get sick.
What is there left of what we wanted that we are going to get?
And is what we get even remotely worth the price we're going to pay?
The only argument I've heard thus far that's even remotely convincing is this: "If the Democrats don't pass something now, they'll go into political exile for a decade- and it'll be a generation before healthcare reform comes again."
My response is: if the Democrats DO pass this, in its current form, they'll go into political exile for a generation, and healthcare reform won't come again- except to repeal what the Democrats have done- for the rest of my lifetime. I honestly believe the bill, as it stands today, is that bad.
As for the argument that the bill is good because of all the subsidy money: we subsidize high-fructose corn syrup and ethanol, too. Just because there's a subsidy doesn't make it a good idea. In this case it's a subsidy which might, or might not, be enough to make an insurance policy affordable... which takes the form of a tax credit, which means you don't get the money back until long after you've spent it, which means if you don't have the dough up front you still can't get insurance... and which is used to buy a policy which may not actually be worth a dime when you get sick.
But, if any of you see something positive enough to make this dog of a bill worth passing, by all means post your response. Maybe I'm wrong. I have been before. I was CERTAINLY wrong about Obama, in every single detail, as I was wrong about the Libertarian Party, and many other things. I feel strongly about this issue, but I am still persuadable. I just don't see anything to be persuaded by...
Do I want any health care reform AT ALL killed because I don't get everything I want in this bill?
No.
I realize that politics is the art of the possible. If you can't get everything you want, you get everything you can get, and regroup to fight another day.
Well, let's see.
Universal coverage - lost.
Competition against the health insurance conglomerate - lost.
State regulations on insurance - repealed under the current Senate bill.
Prohibition on annual cap on medical benefits - lost.
Prohibition on charging more for pre-existing conditions - lost.
Prohibition of denial of coverage for specific procedures - never even thought of.
Individual mandate (i. e. "When being uninsured is outlawed, only outlaws won't be insured") - in from the start, and shows no signs of leaving.
Reform of malpractice liability - never seriously considered.
Reform of pharmaceutical industry - taken off the table by Obama at the start.
Reform of hospital overcharging and overtesting - considered only for Medicare members.
Reform of doctor overcharging and overtesting - considered only for Medicare members.
Prohibition on the noncompetitive practice of paying generic drug companies not to compete with brand-name drugs - never even considered.
So- what we have is a bill that does absolutely nothing to lower the cost of actual healthcare, does nothing to lower the cost of insurance- indeed, allows insurance costs to rise twice as fast per year as it currently does- does nothing to stop the insurance corporations from selling "Neverpay" policies (and indeed repeals state regulations, making it even easier for them)... and then forces all Americans to buy these policies, with no guarantee whatever that it will be affordable or that the policies will actually pay off if we get sick.
What is there left of what we wanted that we are going to get?
And is what we get even remotely worth the price we're going to pay?
The only argument I've heard thus far that's even remotely convincing is this: "If the Democrats don't pass something now, they'll go into political exile for a decade- and it'll be a generation before healthcare reform comes again."
My response is: if the Democrats DO pass this, in its current form, they'll go into political exile for a generation, and healthcare reform won't come again- except to repeal what the Democrats have done- for the rest of my lifetime. I honestly believe the bill, as it stands today, is that bad.
As for the argument that the bill is good because of all the subsidy money: we subsidize high-fructose corn syrup and ethanol, too. Just because there's a subsidy doesn't make it a good idea. In this case it's a subsidy which might, or might not, be enough to make an insurance policy affordable... which takes the form of a tax credit, which means you don't get the money back until long after you've spent it, which means if you don't have the dough up front you still can't get insurance... and which is used to buy a policy which may not actually be worth a dime when you get sick.
But, if any of you see something positive enough to make this dog of a bill worth passing, by all means post your response. Maybe I'm wrong. I have been before. I was CERTAINLY wrong about Obama, in every single detail, as I was wrong about the Libertarian Party, and many other things. I feel strongly about this issue, but I am still persuadable. I just don't see anything to be persuaded by...
