HR3962 passes in the House

[myp]

HR3962 passed in the House a couple of hours ago with 220 votes. The bill establishes mandates on healthcare coverage and has been something the Democrats have been fighting for for the past few months. The abortion coverage was taken out after an amendment that would remove it was passed. The bill will now move to the Senate.

What are you thoughts on this?
Most of you know that I am strongly against this bill and because of that I am upset over this outcome. The bill does not address the real heart of the issue- the lack of healthcare supply and competition.

 

[Dirk]

I'm not entirely sure of the text. Does it include a change to the law that the Federal Government is not allowed to negotiate drug prices?

 

[David]

I'll take it. A foot in the door and all, we can build upon this.

 

[DodgeFB]

HR3962 passed in the House a couple of hours ago with 220 votes. The bill establishes mandates on healthcare coverage and has been something the Democrats have been fighting for for the past few months. The abortion coverage was taken out after an amendment that would remove it was passed. The bill will now move to the Senate.

What are you thoughts on this?
Most of you know that I am strongly against this bill and because of that I am upset over this outcome. The bill does not address the real heart of the issue- the lack of healthcare supply and competition.

I am ashamed of the whole mess. Only good thing I see about it is when it blows up in their face everyone that voted for it be out of there. And of course I hope that back stabbing Republican that voted for it will be first to go. I always knew they would vote for anything just to say they did it. Makes no difference how bad it is just so it makes them "feel good". Years ago when I was a Democrat it was all about feel good politics and I see no change in them now.

 

[Dirk]

But what does it actually do, anyone?

 

[David]

But what does it actually do, anyone?

Everyone is mandated to buy insurance and if they refuse they must pay a higher tax. Refuse that and it's a few years in jail.

On the other hand the insurance companies must, in return for the millions of new costumers the Feds just gave them, must sell to EVERYONE, regardless of age and/or health.

 

[Dirk]

Everyone is mandated to buy insurance and if they refuse they must pay a higher tax. Refuse that and it's a few years in jail.

That's kind of stupid. I'd have understood the "everyone has a right to insurance" thing but i don't like this "it's illegal not to have insurance".

On the other hand the insurance companies must, in return for the millions of new costumers the Feds just gave them, must sell to EVERYONE, regardless of age and/or health.

What about wealth? Everyone still has to buy their insurance? This just sounds like playing into the hands of the insurance giants. How much is this estimated to cost?

An NHS would be so much easier, cheaper, efficient and effective. Though personally, i'd prefer an LHS.

 

[DodgeFB]

Everyone is mandated to buy insurance and if they refuse they must pay a higher tax. Refuse that and it's a few years in jail.

On the other hand the insurance companies must, in return for the millions of new costumers the Feds just gave them, must sell to EVERYONE, regardless of age and/or health.

I don't think the "mandated" or jail will pass the smell test when it gets to the high court. If it does just delete the word "freedom" from anything in the US. Because it will be history.

 

[David]

That's kind of stupid. I'd have understood the "everyone has a right to insurance" thing but i don't like this "it's illegal not to have insurance".



What about wealth? Everyone still has to buy their insurance? This just sounds like playing into the hands of the insurance giants. How much is this estimated to cost?

An NHS would be so much easier, cheaper, efficient and effective. Though personally, i'd prefer an LHS.

I hope it passes for the simple fact that we'll have reform. Considering the public backlash, it shouldn't be hard to get the support needed to amend the hell out of it later.

Still it could have been better.

 

[myp]

I hope it passes for the simple fact that we'll have reform. Considering the public backlash, it shouldn't be hard to get the support needed to amend the hell out of it later.

Still it could have been better.

Reform for the sake of reform is not necessarily good. There is reform in the right direction and in the wrong, so you can't possibly be happy with any reform.

 

[David]

Reform for the sake of reform is not necessarily good. There is reform in the right direction and in the wrong, so you can't possibly be happy with any reform.

But I think this is in the right direction. A shitty job was done but still the right direction. Once it's law (or while it's in the Senate) we can fix it. But no action is, frankly, suicide.

 

[myp]

But I think this is in the right direction. A shitty job was done but still the right direction. Once it's law (or while it's in the Senate) we can fix it. But no action is, frankly, suicide.

It is very hard to amend such a hot topic issue- as even small changes within the current bill have been controversial and often come down to close vote.

The problem with the current bill is that it does not attack the heart of the issue- the fact that there is not enough healthcare to meet demand. Competition needs to be increased by breaking government barriers in the market, which will increase supply and reduce costs. Competition is especially necessary with the insurance companies because currently citizens can't buy across state lines, leaving only one or two companies to choose from in some states, which often means higher prices. It is those problems that should be dealt with- simply mandating everyone gets insurance isn't going to fix anything because the supply still won't be there- it will only lead to rationing, longer wait times, and lower quality of healthcare (not to mention that it doesn't cut costs, in that the government just subsidizes them and in the end we all know who ends up paying for those gov't expenditures.)

 

[deanhills]

It is very hard to amend such a hot topic issue- as even small changes within the current bill have been controversial and often come down to close vote.

The problem with the current bill is that it does not attack the heart of the issue- the fact that there is not enough healthcare to meet demand. Competition needs to be increased by breaking government barriers in the market, which will increase supply and reduce costs. Competition is especially necessary with the insurance companies because currently citizens can't buy across state lines, leaving only one or two companies to choose from in some states, which often means higher prices. It is those problems that should be dealt with- simply mandating everyone gets insurance isn't going to fix anything because the supply still won't be there- it will only lead to rationing, longer wait times, and lower quality of healthcare (not to mention that it doesn't cut costs, in that the government just subsidizes them and in the end we all know who ends up paying for those gov't expenditures.)

This Bill still has to be passed by the Senate first. Does this then mean that everyone thinks it is certain to be passed by the Senate too? I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it does not, as I think it is a HUGE insurance scam in the process of happening. No way is it going to bring down costs, which is supposedly the objective of the exercise. As long as the primary health care is in the hands of private enterprise, all that is going to happen is Insurance Companies and Government getting enriched by the whole project at the expense of the tax payer. If they can't get what they are doing now right in the Medical Care System that is run by the Government, how on earth are they going to get the Insurance Scheme right. Government should not be involved in business like this. And should allow the State Governments to sort out their own medical care.