Healthcare reform confronts pre-existing conditions
So it's come to this. The reason we can't create a massive new Federal entitlement -- universal healthcare -- is that it might endanger another massive Federal entitlement, Medicare.
Call it a pre-existing condition.
We've reached a stage in the debate over the future of our social safety net, taxes, and the economy where the rhetoric is so muddled that most Americans have no idea what's going on.
Democrats are pushing a complicated, kitchen-sink plan that was built by committee. By multiple committees.
Yes, it will insure tens of millions of Americans and end lots of insurance-industry nastiness.
But does anyone think this is the coherent, big-think, third-way solution that Barack Obama promised during the campaign? No way.
It's too expensive, too riddled with compromises.
And the Republicans. Sheesh. They can't decide whether they think there's even really a problem or not.
When they trotted out their "solution" last week, it was a joke. Only three million extra Americans covered over the next decade.
Tens of millions still out in the cold.
If there's a free-market, de-regulation, tort-reforming path to solving this problem, why haven't conservatives found it? Or at least pointed us in the right direction?
It would have been great if, from the beginning, Republicans had signaled a true willingness to collaborate on this bill, shaping it in a bipartisan way.
Instead, they expressed publicly the hope that its defeat would be President Obama's "Waterloo."
My best hope for this dust-up is that the reform package that's finally passed will be something we can fix once it's out of the garage.
Social Security and Medicare -- two of the best-beloved government programs in America -- both required a lot of doctoring after they were rolled out, and they're still far from perfect.
If the Democratic plan does win approval, Mr. Obama should make clear to the American people that this is only a first step. Health care reform is a work in progress.
Labels: healthcare
posted by Brian Mann @ 11/07/2009 08:50:00 AM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
This conservative (small C) thinks a big part of the answer is cutting taxes and spending so people can afford to be hired and buy their own plans. Deregulate the industry so that all 1300 are offered to all the US, not some to some states, some to other, you know- competition. I also think a 2000 page document full of fines, taxes, penalties, limits and sheer unknowns will be just as efficient and popular as our beloved tax code.
Why is it we have to rush into this? They told us we had to rush to save the banks, they're still failing. They told us we had to rush to save Chrysler and give it to the Union, it's still broke with no hope in sight.
I simply don't trust any politician with something so large and expensive. And consider this- if it is a disaster, how do we fix it then? There's no going back from this.
Bret: You say you don't trust politicians with "large and expensive" programs, but why would the CEO of a corporation be any different? What makes you think that, when deregulated, they are going to give that money back to their workers? Time and time again they have proven that they don't. People don't get paid more when they work for behemoth corporations, the opposite is true.
So we should just outlaw corporations over a certain size? Come on, that's no answer. Now if you want to suggest working the law so that it encourages reinvestment in the company/hiring that's another option, but the down side of that is the failure FDR had doing the same thing.
Lets say you're right since I agree your argument has some merit, just as mine does. So what's the answer? We give the power to Gov't- how do we correct it? At least with corporations having the reins there can be oversight laws to remedy the problems. There seems to be no way to fix gov't when it's broken, otherwise we wouldn't have the issues we have today with banking for instance.
The basic argument of all the anti-corporate nonsense is that profit is somehow wrong or immoral. That's nonsense. There has to be a happy medium someplace.
Pre-existing condition limitations are typical for health plans as is trying to purchase fire insurance when you're house is engulfed.
As an ex-insurance salesman one solution that many people can afford is to buy catastrophic insurance. For those who can't then perhaps the state can subsidize via tax credits or etc.
Catastrophic plans would cover large dollar expenses - if you broke your leg, got cancer, heart disease, etc.. These plans typically include max out of pocket expenses too. For example, if you purchased a plan that covers everything over $5k, or 1K, or whatever you think you can afford your premium would probably cost less than $100 /month.
Flu shots, check-ups, and etc. come out of your pocket.
The reason these plans aren't popular or available is that state insurance commissioners and state legislatures have mandated that most if not all plans sold in a given state have attached to them services that drive up the cost of policies.
This said, if you could purchase health insurance like you purchase auto/home insurance policies would be much simpler and more affordable. It would most likely drive down costs too. Individuals would then examine their bills and question costs, which is largely absent today. The mentality today is - why examine your bill if a third party is paying for it?
The fact is that most policies today that are sold as health "insurance" aren't really insurance at all - they're a compilation services for which a fee is negotiated and these services are packaged together. Insurance is supposed to be a hedge against a catastrophe (like one's home going up in flames). There's little indemnification in today's health insurance.
If I'm required to purchase health "insurance" I hope I have the option (after being coerced into purchasing something I don't want)of buying a high deductible plan.
JPM
Corporations need to be regulatated. The only entity big enough to regulate corporations is the Federal Government - and it is civil servants who do most of the regulating - not politicians. The Big Governnment Politicians (all 538 of them - now that's BIG!) write the laws, the Supreme Court interprets the laws, the Justice Dept. enforces the laws (at least since Jan 20th 2009).
Politicians can be voted out of office if they are corrupt or unresponsive, corporations have no fears of the same.
Corporations are run by people. Some are beneficent, well meaning organizations that care for the bottom line - and how it affects all their workers. Most corporations are run by people that care for the bottom line.
Read, "The Jungle", written in 1906to get an idea of an unregulated economy looks like.
Capitalism does not necessarily equate Democracy.
The problem is the same people writing the laws to regulate the corporations are writing them so that they benefit the lawmakers and SOME of the corporations, who just through sheer coincidence happen to be major contributors to those lawmakers. You can't completely squash the corporation or they go under, more unemployment. You can't regulate it so that it's cheaper to relocate and do business where US laws don't apply, even more unemployment. You also can't be completely lazzie faire (sp) about it either. How do you expect a corrupt group of politicians to write fair laws? Wasn't it Boxer who wrote the increased minimum wage law so that it affected everyone EXCEPT her husbands company in American Samoa? Wasn't it Reid who formed a shadow corp to handle shady land deals he was involved in? The Repubs are no better.
This is part of the reason we need a permanent line item veto for the White House and a line item vote in Congress. Make them accountable by their vote. We've got to end the practices of tacked on provisions to major bills. That's how much of the garbage gets passed into law benefiting the mega corps and leading to disasters.
It's not the whole answer, but it can't hurt.
Post a Comment
<< Home