I have always contended that THE BILL being called health-care reform is a misnomer and that it is truly health-insurance reform.
Can we cut out the rhetoric?
Other than anecdotes, no one on the UHC side has shown why it is needed. How many Americans are uninsured? How many of those want insurance but can’t get it? How many of those should be insurable meaning they are not already ill? Give us numbers! Prove that it is a needed social reform and not a convienent excuse for wealth distribution.
What will it cost?
It doesn’t take an econ major to realize that the reason it doesn’t cost a lot is because the government will collect taxes for THREE YEARS before providing services. How much do Americans pay for health care now through insurance, copays, meds, etc. and how much will it cost the taxpayers if the bill passes? If the costs increase, who pays for it?
Why don’t Americans want it?
Rather than fudging numbers, lets come up with hard data. According to Rasmussan, only 38% of Americans want this to pass. If you have different numbers, then lets see them. Why did one Democrat have to be bribed (LA) and one threatened (NEB)? Why did the Dems exempt the unions’ “cadillac plans” that they rail against? Is this truly a case where 38% of Americans have an insight that the rest of us don’t have. No fair only blaming Republicans! The Dems had a filibuster-proof 60% so there must be more at work than Red vs. Blue.
Why is it not health insurance reform?
I keep hearing about illness and people not getting care when they’re sick. Is the bill more than just insuring 80% of Americans (and screw the other 20% I guess). Is there any difference between this bill and just having the government buying a giant group policy for that 80%? Will I as someone who has a decent policy already actually get BETTER care under this plan?
The plans are largely being sold to the public based on the idea that they will cut spending. Almost certainly there will be almost no change to how much we spend on health care after the bill is passed, and the spending will continue to increase at the same rate.
The politicians are aware of this, and hence have little desire to put their name on it.
As for why they don’t just vote for something that will affect spending, it’s because they don’t want to be seen as interventionist. They’d rather not have to mess with anything beyond expanding Medicaid–which already exists–and accepting more people into that. But of course there’s 50% of the country and the insurance industry which don’t want a massive government health fund, so their number 1 choice is shot and they really don’t want any of the alternatives because they’re interventionist and won’t decrease spending. Making large changes is scary and gets you booted from your cozy position. And any change which is safe to take won’t decrease spending to a reasonable level for another good decade at least. Anything faster than that will disrupt the economy. Voters don’t look at 10 year timetables to decide who to vote into office.
It was supposed to be a version of social insurance (like Canadian Medicare) watered down enough to pass Congress. I wonder if just doing a full-on socialized-medicine proposal wouldn’t have sold better.
Interesting OP. You make several assertions with no cites, but ask a large number of questions (each could be a thread of their own) demanding cites. It would take a more time than I have to track down each of your claims and answer them.
Here is for question 1 though.
a. How many people are uninsured. In 2007 there were 45.7 million people under the age of 65.
b. How many of those want insurance but can’t get it?
Impossible to know an exact number. But I would wager that 99.9% of them would want it if it was given freely as in UHC.
c. How many of those should be insurable meaning they are not already ill?
Impossible to know an exact number. What is your point?
d. Give us numbers!
Give us questions that can be answered.
e. Prove that it is a needed social reform and not a convienent excuse for wealth distribution.
What a crock to attempt to paint it as wealth distribution. Do you really think, really, that any liberal/social conservative has an agenda of wealth distribution?
Realize the US already has socialized health care for the elderly. Gee, who uses health care the most anyways?
To use the car insurance example, this would be like the government providing car insurance only to those who have had an accident before. If you’ve got a clean record, you have to buy it yourself.
So - why not add in the generally healthier and younger people. We could eliminate the middleman? Socialized countries pay way less per capita than the US. Why? One big reason is eliminating that middleman, the insurance industries as well as all the resources doctors, hospitals and individuals have to put into with dealing with them.
I have no doubt that if UHC came into effect in the US, and health insurance companies became yesterdays news, we’d have lower costs overall for health care. The country as a whole improves and everyone benefits overall.
I’ve seen this before as one of the reasons to not have a form of UHC in the US. From a short term perspective, if UHC were suddenly implemented, this would perhaps make sense. There would be a great deal of hardship while the insurance industry workforce had to make large adjustments.
From a long term perspective though, it does not make sense, particularly if UHC is brought in slowly and methodically. Trust me, here in Canada, we do not have roving gangs of former health insurance industry employees who have not been able to find anything else to do. That particular industry is simply very small (dealing as they do with only extended benefit plans), and the people who WOULD have been working in this industry are doing other (more productive perhaps?) jobs.
First of all, I did cite Rasmussen. The rest are honest questions that no one on either side of the aisle have given us.
So starting with the number you gave us, this is an issue addressing the needs of 45.7 million which I thank you for since its more info since we had before.
Filibuster proof 60 votes? I don’t think we can call that asswipe Lieberman a Democrat and he sure wan’t on board. It’s amazing there is any support left at all given the lies spewed forth by the right wing. Fear and lies are still stronger than the truth unfortunately. I don’t think we could pass the Bill of Rights these days with Fox and company providing the commentary.
Nothing will change until the Dems play hardball. All earmarks to the red states need to be cut off. If they don’t want big government then they can clean up after their own hurricanes and build there own damn roads to Bumfuck North Nowhwere. They can’t simultaneously suck on our tit and kick us in the teeth much longer.
Because the Right is composed of people who hate the idea of the government helping anyone for any reason, to the point that they are willing to literally die rather than give in. And they have no reluctance whatsoever to see others die.
And because much of the Left sees it as having been watered down and compromised to the point that it is useless at best. Most ( about 80% ) Americans wanted a public option plan at the very least; they didn’t want a handout to the insurance companies. The Left ( accurately ) sees the Democrats as having caved in and sold out, in return for…nothing, apparently.