Home > America, Science & Health > Healthcare Bill – Eat this or pay up

Healthcare Bill – Eat this or pay up

The Botom Line: This supposed healthcare bill that was supposed to lead to socialized healthcare is just the government creating another crappy, bureaucratic provider of swill while taxing those who aren’t content with any of the providers out there.
——

It’s 10:43 at night and I just spent hours discussing the merits of using force against a tyrannical government, perceived or actual, among other things. I’ve also played with the new kitten (pictures forthcoming?)

This afternoon I received a story assignment on the weighty issue of concealed carry permit reciprocity, a.k.a. should states honor other states’ standards for concealed carriers when it comes to non-residents and ignore their own? Knowing I’d get no response, I decided to leave messages with Mark Warner, Jim Webb, and the sponsor of the bill, South Dakotan senator John Thune.

I also helped moderate a game of Bingo for high school journalism students current attending J-Camp at Virginia Tech.

But what I wanted to blog about all day, with Michael Steele and Obama going at it in the national media over this issue, is healthcare.

Prepare to enter the ****storm.
—–

The way I understand it there are two things going on here. One is the familiar debate of who should we trust to provide healthcare. The private, profit-seeking system? Or a public option with all the flaws and benefits of a tax-supported bureaucracy? The second thing that is happening is the actual legislation that is on the table. And I don’t really hear much about that from the mainstream media. So…let’s look into that.

What seems to be the problem?...Can you fill that out in triplicate?
What seems to be the problem?…Can you fill that out in triplicate?

Here is the bill that is currently going through the House of Represenatatives on OpenCongress.

Here’s some of what’s in it:

  • The bill seems to allow existing coverage to stand so long as: a) people don’t enroll in this type of coverage after the bill was passed, b) the insurer doesn’t change the conditions, and c) insurer doesn’t target a specific group for premium increases
  • It gives companies a “grace period,” looks like 5 years to pick plans that meet the standards.
  • The bill outright says a “qualified health plan” (managed care program from a self-insured employer) may not impose pre-existing conidtions. It also limits the variance of premium rates (a.k.a. makes it harder to jack them up).
  • Minimum services to be covered under qualified health plan: hospitalization, outpatient care, physician services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and habilitative services, mental health and substance use disorder services, preventive services, maternity care, well baby, well child care, oral health, vision, hearing services to “children” under 21 years of age.
  • Creation of a Health Benefits Advisory Committee and a Health Choices Administrator run by a Health Choices commisioner to enforce the above regulations as well as state regulations
  • Has a subtitle for consumer protections in quality health benefits plans including fair marketing practices, grievance and appeals mechanisms, information transparency, timely payment of claims.
  • Sets up a “health insurance exchange” to facilitate acceess to a variety of choices, including the public health option.
  • There is currently a public option listed in the bill a.k.a. government-sponsored healthcare. It is only available through the Health Insurance Exchange (does this mean you need existing insurance before you can get it?) and must comply with the same standards as the other Exchange plans. It can offer basic, enhancd, premium and premium-plus plans (it sounds like they’re selling you a credit card).
  • The Secretary of Health and Human Services sets the premiums and the bill calls for initial funding of $2 billion (which is paid back by the department of HHS). The premiums will be set at Medicare rates (I didn’t realize you paid premiums for Medicare?)
  • If you make less than $43,000/yr as an individual or $88,000/yr for a family of four, the government will subsidize your premiums for the public option. Though, I think you have to get Medicaid if you’re eligible for it.
  • Some reforms start in 2010, but it seems most of it doesn’t go into effect into 2013 (conveniently timed, no?)
  • If you don’t have coverage (and you are deemed by the IRS as someone who can afford it), you pay a tax of 2.5% your adjusted gross income without exceeding the national premium. Sort of like the uninsured motorist fee, I suppose, except now we’re not just trying to charge you for potentially stiffing me on car repairs. We’re trying to charge you for not taking care of yourself. Shame on you, taxpayer. Shame on you. Get healthcare. *rolls eyes*

While I have no sympathy for the douchebag with the scarf paying 50% taxes, I feel sad that the cute chick on the bottom has to pay a no health care tax (also, that her birth control isnt covered).
While I have no sympathy for the douchebag with the scarf paying 50% taxes, I feel sad that the cute chick on the bottom has to pay a “no health care tax” (also, that her birth control isn’t covered).
  • Emloyers are obliged to provide healthcare or provide funds for healthcare, but small business get a tax credit that exempts them from this.
  • The rich will pay this in healthcare taxes: 1% gross adjusted income for people making between $350K and $500K. 1.5% for those making between $500K and $1 million. And 5.4% from those making $1 million or more.
  • The program expands Medicaid eligibility levels and supposedly improves Medicare and Medicaid (wow! how can it get any better??)
  • Undocumented aliens receive no coverage.

So….that’s the big fixing of U.S. healthcare? This…

This sucks.

Someone somewhere (maybe some hobo on the street) led me to believe that voting for Obama meant someday I could look forward to breaking my groin bone and rolling into any hospital, waiting in excruciating pain for hours, getting treated like shit by a state-paid doctor and then leaving with a bandage on my groin without having paid a cent. I would prefer that to this.

While it doesn’t sound like the bill is particularly kind to health insurers, it doesn’t seem to provide any sort of strong competition that would make them really buck up. I support all the rules about not denying customers based on pre-existings and providing a minimum of things to cover, but…why does my public option look suspiciously like standard health insurance? Where is my magical, mediocore but free care that I need to have to go back to a doctor and let him feel my balls? Where is that?

Premiums? What? Why not just tax me? Isn’t that how the government is supposed to make money?

YOU’RE DEMOCRATS. TAX ME. TAX ME!! And tax those damn suburbanites too, not just those making over $350,000. But don’t offer me more damn premium insurance plans with varying degrees of ball-busting. Give me a nation of free clinics. Do it! Do it!

The reason I’m out of the capacity for reasoned argument is because it’s 3 in the morning. I just spend hours looking at that damn bill and it’s stupid. It doesn’t do enough and I’m not sure if it even provides tangible benefits. Though it does say that if I’m still not satisfied with any insurer that I get to pay a fee.

Fuck you, government. Seriously, eat a dick. That’s all I can say at this hour.

Oh, but here’s a guy who liked it. I’m jealous. I wish I could be content with a sack of poop wrapped in an elephant’s foreskin.

Picture unrelated?
Picture unrelated?

What do you think?

Is this an improvement to the current healthcare system? Will we ever see the day when you can walk into a hospital and never get charged for it?

  1. Peter
    July 21, 2009 at 6:39 am

    Thank you for doing my thinking for me. Like you, I always envisioned your roll-into-any-hospital concept with public health care, and it looks like this isn’t at all what they’re planning. It’s hardly “socialism” at all… though the sheer fact that government is involved in any way makes it so.

  2. July 21, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    You’ve got to do away with the white-text-black-background thing.

  3. July 21, 2009 at 9:47 pm

    Also, someone tell me if I’m crazy here, but I think that ANY move toward your free hospital fantasy is better than nothing. Politicians move very slowly, and once they get us on this track toward free hospitals (assuming it is a good way to go, of course), then over time they will gradually continue going in that direction, if for no other reason than the fact that if this bill is passed, it will be a hell of a job to undo it.

  4. July 21, 2009 at 9:48 pm

    And, your timestamps are an hour early.

  5. K'Nex
    July 21, 2009 at 11:24 pm

    I respectively disagree with Heathcliff’s second comment, because I know things have swung one way before and then been pulled back. I really like the idea of free hospitals. I’m a little wary of the details of the plan, which admittedly, I’m still confused by, despite reading many articles on the matter. “Will it bring costs down?” is the key question. And then will the method of paying for it be acceptable. I just read a Washington Post article that made the point that the uninsured group consists not only of the poor, but of the young. The costs go down for everyone if young people join into the overall insurance network, since they are cheap to care for.

    I really would just like the government to TAX me and then release me from the hassle and worry of who is paying for it when I walk into a clinic or hospital.

    I’m going to be following this very closely, especially since as of my 22nd birthday, I’ve been one of the 50 million uninsured that everyone keeps talking about.

  6. cadmaris
    July 25, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    Oh dear. Thank you for outlining the changes this bill will be attempting to make, I have to say its better than what I thought it was going to be. Your right, it doesn’t do enough, but its a bit silly to expect it for free.
    I didn’t think this was going to be socialized health care. This also only looks at one or two levels of the problem (insurance and the transparency of prices for services), and doesn’t look forward at all in regards to our coming shortage of doctors or our current shortage of primary care doctors. It should be investing in new doctors, nurse practitioners and PAs, especially in rural areas. A major public health campaign to work to get people primary care doctors, and getting yearly checkups or physicals, in an attempt to prevent against major health crisis and lower costs.
    It doesn’t sound much like it will lower costs, or even reform the problems with medicare or medicaid, which are in desperate need of reform, if they shouldn’t just be removed all together and replaced with a better designed program. Medicare is going to go bankrupt in a few years.
    I’m unsure exactly how the government program will be set up, so I can’t comment about that until I know more. But I worry about more bureaucratic red tape that is already such a problem for medicare and medicaid. I think some sort of non-profit set-up out of the government with surveillance might be a viable option.
    We can’t expect health care for free. That’s not going to happen anytime soon. It isn’t free. There are a lot of costs involved. Figuring out how to control the spending and still getting people care is the issue. We spend the most on health care out of every developed nation, and we seem to be getting less out of it. This needs to be fixed.
    This bill might be a step in the right direction, but it sounds more like a waste of time. Its like sticking a band aid on cancer. It might help with insurance problems, but there is no lasting reform here to the systems that already exist.
    I would rather they take there time on putting together an informed plan than rush this through.

  7. July 25, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    Well I don’t think the argument is about free healthcare versus paid healthcare. Both sides know that healthcare has to cost something. The question is how we’re going to pay for it.

    I want a system like Canada’s where we pay for it through taxes. That way, individuals aren’t wiped out for things like broken bones, infections, and temporary medication. I don’t think government-sponsored health care is the solution to expensive procedures like bypass surgery, hysterectomies, or experimental medication. For these complicated, less-common costs, we may still need private healthcare. But I refuse to believe that the best economic choice is for the American people to pay in billions of dollars annually and still have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for routine procedures.

    The rest of the developed world has something in place and their citizens are laughing at us. When are people going to start speaking out?

  8. cadmaris
    July 26, 2009 at 11:13 am

    I don’t think a system like they have in Canada would work particularly well in the U.S. They have their own major problems, and they are also much smaller in terms of population. I think that we will need to really have to come up with a new system, looking at the others that exist to come up with a solution that might work here. I can only hope that the tax costs are going into the initial set up and that it will be fueled by the premiums. Yeah, I see what you mean though. It does look like a double charge, but since this isn’t actually national health care maybe they don’t think they can just use taxes because it won’t be designed to cover everyone…though that is really just a hopeful guess. The program probably won’t have enough money regardless of where it comes from.

    You might look at the health care reforms that were passed in Massachusetts and draw a comparison between what they did and what the federal government is attempting to do.

  9. meusintuitus
    July 27, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    The logic of this bill is that the government option, being free of profit incentive, will naturally have lower premiums and, in competing with private health insurance, will bring their profit-seeking down.

    As for anyone who was hoping for a Canada-like system, that was and is politically impossible. Too many Americans still cry “socialism” and too much insurance lobby money is in our government for that.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment