According to CNN http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/16/health.care/index.html the bill would cost about 850 billion dollars over 10 years. Unlike some of the other health care bills proposed, the health care bill created by the senate finance committee would mandate that every American be covered by health care. If I understand this correctly and I am not sure if I do, they are also not calling for free health-care. The senate committee wants to establish non-profit health care corporations that everyone has to buy their insurance from. Rather than being free for
everyone the government would simply pay part of the health care depending on the individual.
I am a liberal and proud to be so. However, I think this plan is ridiculous. It is one thing to make government health care optional so that the less fortunate can buy it, but I am not supportive of replacing everyone's health care with the government care. On top of that, what is going to happen to the private insurance companies if this bill passes? The insurance industry is a big industry in America and this would be a huge blow if not a fatal one for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Mark, I think you are mistaken. This bill would mandate that everyone obtain insurance coverage and would subsidize coverage for lower income people. Most people would continue to be covered by private insurance companies, who will be getting more customers if this becomes law. Government would not become the health care provider in any respect, but would create non-governmental non-profit insurance pools to foster competition between insurance companies. Those non-profits would be instead of the so-called "public option" present in other bills which would create a government administered insurance plan. Even that idea leaves the existing insurance companies, hospitals, and medical practices intact.
For more information, I encourage you to check out Julia's article in tomorrow's edition of the Aragon Outlook, after which on-line sources will likely be more meaningful.
Besides what Mr.Silton said, there is a logical flaw in your reasoning.
"...but I am not supportive of replacing everyone's health care with the government care."
No one wants to replace the health care provided under a private insurance company. If a person has private insurance, then that's great. That's one less subsidy the government has to provide for.
Trying to replace private health care with public health care is like trying to close down private schools in favor it public ones. It makes no sense to the president or anyone else. Besides, there is general consensus that private schools (or private of anything) are better than public schools. Why would the president want to spend money on replacing something that is better (private insurance) with something that is worse(public insurance)?
Going to keep this short, as opposed to my other comments, but the government OPTION should in no way be criticized. If people want government assistance, yay. If people refuse government assistance, yay. The point is there's an option to remedy the crisis low-income people are in. Sure, some insurance industries will go out of business, but hey, it's not like they've been draining money out of us already. We just have to go on their mercy. I'd ultimately rather have reasonable but average health care available, than greedy but excellent health care only available, considering the economy, needless to say.
Two cents :)
-Andrew Oxendine 3°
"If people want government assistance, yay. If people refuse government assistance, yay."
The problem that some people see is that for those who do have private insurance, they don't want to pay for the money used for subsidies.
Here's a summary of what I understand of the plan so far.
1. The government provide grants to a non-government, non-profit organization.
2. That organization or "nonprofit health care cooperatives" would negotiate with insurance companies to provide insurance to Americans without them.
"Insurance companies also would be barred from imposing annual caps or lifetime limits on coverage. At the same time, Americans would be required to have health coverage, and those failing to comply would face fines of up to $950 annually for individuals, and $3,800 for families."
Woah, what's this?
Americans are fined if they don't have or want to have health insurance?
I must be reading it wrong.
This is great for people who don't have healthcare because our friendly incredibly in debt government is coming to pay for your healthcare, it just sucks for everyone else. This 800 billion dollar healthcare plan that won't cost us any money but simply reshuffle 800 billion dollars in cost is gonna be fun to watch. After 3 years we will start to hear the first complains about massive overspending and unforeseen costs and then we are in for it. When the bill starts costing these billions of dollars more I wonder where they are going to get the money to pay for it, probably by taxing the people who already have healthcare. If you don't believe we will run into extra costs your living under a rock.
This entire idea of government healthcare will be one big rodeo show and the reason the republicans will make huge headways in the '12 election towards retaking house, senate, and presidency. Below is a link to one of my favorite videos and an Obama quote from his speech to go with it :D enjoy.
Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for - from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx12YI6gxnI
A few of the better quotes from the video if you don't want to watch the whole thing.
"Since Obama became president he signed 1.9 trillion dollars in new spending." 'His budget would raise taxes by 1.4 trillion dollars over the next 10 years." "Presidents budget will accumulate 9.2 trillion dollars in debt."
Also lolololololololololol.
Anders, we can be creative about who we tax.
We can have a go at the soft drink industry or possibly the fast food industry. Taxing the candy industry is another possibility. There are ways to raise revenue and slightly wean Americans off an unhealthy diet and/or lifestyle. Of course, these industry taxes won't pay for the entire bill, but it will certainly mitigate the huge costs that ordninary people will have to face.
I feel rather embarrassed about this post. However, it is a bit late to simply retract it. Although I do not claim to have in depth knowledge of the proposed bills I do not find myself completely ignorant of them either. My post was specifically about the senate finance committee's bill. I take complete fault for the misunderstanding bc I did not do my hw obviously.
I based my knowledge off of the previously posted CNN article. What is less obvious is that it has been revised and updated so many times today that I read it a second time only recognizing a sentence here or there. I believe the original article I read must have been recently after the bill was announced because it was convoluted, vague, and confusing
I was shocked by the meaning I received (probably because it was completely false). From what I extracted the senate finance committee's bill completely deviated from the other bills already announced and took radical approaches. Apparently that is not true upon further research.
Fortunately I learned a couple good lessons. 1) always cross check you evidence 2)never completely trust reporting that happens right after a big event because even if it is not false it can be very badly phrased due to the rush of getting it published
Post a Comment