Senate Finance Committee bill is terrible - no surprise

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by it5five, Sep 16, 2009.

  1. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #1
    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/16/health.care/

    Worst case scenario here. Coverage is mandated, but there is no government-option for insurance. So basically, the insurance corporations were just handed tens of millions of new customers who will be forced to pay for their terrible coverage.

    If this is what passes for "reform", I hope it does not get through Congress.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    That had better not happen, or Obama will be out of a job next term. I promise you that.
     
  3. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    Why not a plan of everyone get insurance but reform the insurance companies so that costs are lower. If everyone in the country buys in won't that drive costs down.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    You're trusting insurance companies to do the right thing? Why? Because they have so far? Not...going...to...happen...
     
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #5
    Boy. Baucus really won people over.

    The Baucus bill disappoints in pretty much every way we expected it to. Why he keeps pushing these co-ops nobody else seems to want is beyond me.

    This is going nowhere. Unfortunately, we are headed for reconciliation. That's the only way this is going to get done.
     
  6. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #6
    That is why I said reform the insurance companies.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Uh-huh. Good luck with that. It'll be "the government is taking over private business! It's socialism!" all over again. The bottom line is this- conservatives want everything to stay the way it is now.
     
  8. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #8
    They seem to not realize what the goal of getting a bill put together is. The goal is not to produce a bill related to health care that can be considered bipartisan, the goal is to formulate a bill that reforms the health care system in such a way as to get everyone covered and save costs in the long run.

    This part is very telling:
    Maybe I am misinterpreting it, but it seems like he is using the word "pragmatic" as applied to getting the bill passed as opposed to getting the bill to work for the American people.

    Pragmatism is defined as "character or conduct that emphasizes practicality." What needs to be practical first and foremost is the bill itself, then you work on getting it passed. It doesn't prove anything if you pass a bill that is as crippled and flawed as this one appears at first glance.
     
  9. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #9
    Not surprised at alll. :(

    Is there a list of the Blue Dog Dems out there? I want to know if any of Oregon's Senators are considered to be one so I can write them a letter.
     
  10. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #10
    I personally will protest this and not get coverage if mandated to. Worst case scenario is a fine.
     
  11. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #11
    If a massive bill like this gets pushed through with reconciliation you can go ahead and consider it your last movement in congress, especially since the republicans are going to gain seats in 10.
     
  12. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #12
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

    Well, that remains to be seen. I think the procedural ramifications in Congress are much more daunting than the electoral ones. No matter how Dems get health reform done, if they do it and the world doesn't come to an end as the Republicans have been preaching, the Dems will come out all right. And I don't buy into the idea that the GOP will automatically gain seats. With lots of Republicans retiring and the party's approval rating significantly lower than the Dems, 2010 is not going to be your typical mid-term year.
     
  13. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #13
    I don't know, it sounds to me like there are provisions in there for forcing the insurance companies to improve their coverage. From your link (emphasis below is mine):

    I have mixed feelings about this bill - if the bill can actually force the insurance companies to make these changes, it would be great. I'm curious how they actually intend to make it happen. I sense some growing pains while everyone feels out the situation and works out the loopholes in the first few years after its passage.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    It's not going to pass. Insurance companies will fight this too- don't think they won't. This certainly can't be good news to them.
     
  15. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #15
    Oh, they'll LOVE the requirement that everyone have insurance...the problem is that the mandates from the government regarding spending caps, preexisting conditions, etc. will start them thinking that they have to raise premiums as a result. I don't recall seeing anything in the bill that caps premiums, but I may have missed that.

    The bill doesn't help a whole lot if it allows the insurers to jack up their rates exorbitantly.
     
  16. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    No- it really doesn't. It makes things worse.
     
  17. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #17
    I supported the public option because I truly believe that it would remain an option out of many plans, and still give people the freedom of choice they deserve.

    Many people were worried that over time this would funnel down to only the public option, removing freedom of choice. I didn't believe this because of all the examples of other countries pulling off a hybrid system, like Germany, Canada, and England. Of course, this system can backfire, too, as it seems to have done in France, but I believe anything can happen in America.

    Baucus's bill it ridiculous. It removes the public option, supposedly to remove worries that freedom of choice will be taken away, but introduces a mandate that every must buy insurance - from the companies who have been milking Americans dry for the past decades, and people will be forced to pay a fine if they don't! Talk about a big government? They are forcing you to buy something you may never need and if you refuse? Well, they'll take your money anyway :) This reminds me of that spoof ad after the auto bailout:

    "you didn't buy our sh*tty cars, so we'll be taking you money anyway."

    The way I see it, there is nothing in this bill to keep costs down. Insurance companies will not have to entice people over. People will be required by law to buy their plan. All that stuff about not denying coverage would probably have insurance companies raising prices instead. They will probably made it out like the government is being unfair by removing preexisting conditions and pay caps, so they have to raise prices to "stay competitive."

    Anyway, all of this is pointless. The bill is terrible. It will not get much support from anyone in the senate because it is the worst of both worlds. It stands absolutely no chance of passing the jumbo majority in the house. Max Baucus must be living in his own insurance lobbyist funded world. He just comes out now and then to pretend to be a US senator.
     
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    How - if your family income is $20k/year are you supposed to afford $4k/year of fines for not having healthcare coverage?
     
  19. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #19
    By paying much less than that for insurance premiums, I imagine.
     
  20. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #20
    If the fine is less than it costs me to get coverage, guess which way I'm going!
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Why wouldn't you do that without the fines if you could afford to?
     
  22. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #22
    Those who don't have the funds to afford coverage?

    This is one crappy plan...sure they avoid the "socialist" GOP screams(maybe), but I don't support people so they can look good, I support them so they can get stuff passed!
     
  23. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #23
    I've been asking that very question for quite some time. I keep getting as a response, "Too many people don't have insurance because they can't afford insurance," when "afford" is a relative term. Many people can afford premiums much more easily than they can "afford" to pay out-of-pocket for major surgery.

    The problem, as you're no doubt aware, is that so many people don't pay for premiums. So many people assume that because their employer doesn't offer insurance at a group rate (or give it to them for free) that they can't buy coverage at all, which isn't the case. If the government makes good on Obama's plan to establish a trading post of sorts where individuals can group themselves together and insurers can offer them plans at group rates, this could work out really well.

    I don't like to be skeptical, but I'm having a hard time seeing this thing get implemented smoothly at first. I think there will be some growing pains.
     
  24. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #24
    Isn't the average cost of health insurance for a family of four around $12k a year? Paying the $4k fine vs. the $12k premiums would mean significant savings for many many families who are already stretched too thin. I guess the next question would be, how hefty would the tax relief be and how is that tax relief going to be paid for?

    @Tomorrow - while it might be true that its easier to come up with premiums much more easily than it is to come up with huge lump sums for major operations, the poor are going to be more concerned with using that money for basic essentials than "what ifs."
     
  25. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #25
    Where are you guys seeing the fine set at $4k? That is ridiculous. I wonder how they plan to enforce it. Random checkpoints to see if you have a health insurance card? :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page