Our Democrat Guest Writer talks HR 3200
So I was pleasantly surprised to find several aspects of the HR 3200 act as an attempt to assuage both left and right wing concerns about the health care crisis.
But first things first. I’d like to address what I understand as the most pressing concerns about HR 3200, and provide some answers. Additionally, please remember that I’m a liberal Democrat. I lean far left, and even if this bill did propose turning the U.S. into a socialist utopia, I probably wouldn’t care. Sadly, I doubt my dreams of a socialist utopia (please read in a healthy dose of sarcasm into that last phrase,) will come true via this bill. Here are some other things that won’t be happening if HR 3200 passed.
1. No Death Panels. Shoot. I was so looking forward to killing off Grandma. According to HR 3200 critics, section 1233 of the bill proposes a plan to schedule the deaths of senior citizens through mandatory end-of-life consultations. If you didn’t pass this “death panel” you could lose access to medical care, and be left to die slowly.
This simply is not true. First, end-of-life consultations are not a new invention. Under the current system, insurance companies, or the elderly themselves, pay doctors to conduct them. They are considered the standard of care when dealing with elderly or terminal patients, and mostly cover issues such as living wills and options for hospice care, and preferred levels of medical intervention. HR 3200 does change pays for these consultations. Under this bill end-of-life consultations will be covered by Medicare. The financial impetus for doctors to conduct end-of-life consultations remains the same, but the financial cost for the individual patient decreases.
End of story: Section 1233 makes the difficult decisions faced by the elderly and their families cheaper and easier.
2. No long lines for sub-par medical care. No socialism. A lot of people like to generalize this bill, and throw around scary comments like “We will have to wait hours in the emergency room to see a doctor! It will be just like Canada!” While the merits and disadvantages of Canada’s health care system are a topic for another day, HR 3200 is not a carbon copy of an inadequate health care system. Or socialist.
It is important to understand that the changes to the health care system proposed by HR 3200 are long-term. The proposals call for gradual adjustments to the health care system over the course of 8 years. The changes involve creating a “marketplace” regulated by the federal government, in which patients can choose to keep their existing insurance, or opt for one of the four federal plans offered by the Health Insurance Exchange, or marketplace.
Personally, my favorite part of the bill includes language banning private insurance companies from cancelling patient’s coverage in the case of a medical emergency, or denying people health insurance based on pre-existing conditions. I like this because it reforms damaging policies utilized by private health insurance companies, while maintaining a competitive “market” for patients. You can still shop around for the policy best suited for your needs, without the fear of being rejected because of a previous illness. Capitalism still lives. It is regulated, sure, but this is a far cry from socialism. Sorry, Glenn Beck.
3. No national bankruptcy. But it is expensive. All valuable things are expensive. In the course of a decade, The Congressional Budget Office estimates the costs of HR 3200 to reach $1 trillion. $500 billion comes from savings made from modifying Medicaid and Medicare. (While a lot of elderly people fear this will lower their access to medical-care, it is important to note that they receive more coverage under the plans offered in the Health Insurance Exchange, the modifications simply stream-line, not eliminate government-sponsored health care for the elderly.)
The other $500 billion comes from rich people. I know. Socialism. Whatever. A 1% tax on people making $500,000 a year doesn’t bother me. A 5.4% tax on people making over a million a year doesn’t bother me. I don’t know why it should bother you either, since people who make this much money reside in the top 1.5 % of the population. If you make that much, and are reading this, you need to get a life. Or a new yacht.
Lastly, just for the sake of comparative analysis: The War on Terror cost $3 trillion over the course of five years. And it still isn’t over. Universal Health Care is a bargain!
September 4, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Thank you MCB! FYI, the last sentence should say $3 Trillion... which is enough money to start a permanent colony on Mars!
Why is it that the republican party (and lets be honest, a few democrats too) can start unjustified and ridiculously expensive wars (leading to over 1,000,000 deaths) and call themselves patriots and fiscal conservatives; while democrats (and lets be honest, no republicans included) have tried to end the wars and implement comparatively cheap health care reform (that will actually SAVE lives) and they're called socialist Nazis?
September 4, 2009 at 1:12 PM
In an effort to promote fair dealings and level headed conversation, let me address the 3 points you brought up from what I consider to be my own fairly centrist but right leaning position.
1. Death Panels - I couldn't agree more. It's a ridiculous talking point brought up by people completely out of touch with our current medical climate.
2. This is the one I hesitate in addressing, as it's probably the most controversial topic you bring up. It's true, that the government option(s) don't directly eliminate private insurance companies. But I'm afraid that's only the short term view. You are talking about trying to maintain a free enterprise system with a "competitor" who couldn't care less if they made or lost money. The government so much as entering a free market like this essentially dooms any and all competition, because they won't be able to compete with someone who can increase spending and ignore profit margins ad nauseum.
Now maybe that's not such a bad thing. You'd be hard-pressed to find an American who feels the insurance companies are "good people". But let's look at the alternative as it is currently in practice. Medicare is projected to be bankrupt in approximately 11 years. The government already runs a portion of our healthcare system, and it is being run straight into the ground. I'm finding it difficult to see how giving them more power and more money will solve the problem. If I found my child trying to make fireworks and missing 2 fingers, I wouldn't give him more powder.
3. It would be so nice if we had any kind of assurance that this $500 billion dollar bill would be handled at the upper echelons of American income. But too often the rich have found ways to exploit an already poorly constructed system (the same one this bill is trying to expand) and instead passed those tax debts on to the middle class.
This is such a crisis for our country, largely because both sides are right. We absolutely need to improve who gets medical treatment and how. Also, we absolutely can't trust a group of men and women who have regularly failed to manage similar programs in the past (medicare, social security, welfare).
September 4, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Glad to get a chance to read your first post here.... I can see you and I are going to disagree on LOTS of things ;)
This should be "interesting". LOL
ps Quit picking on my boyfriend, Glenn Beck!
September 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Just want to point out that yes, the private mail companies are thriving...however, the government run program is failing. It seems as if we can't have it both ways. One will always fail...
September 5, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Hiya! Thanks for your thoughts Stephanie-great first post =) We agree on one thing at least-there is no such thing as "the death panel" and anyone who promotes that idea is speaking irrationally based on their own personal biases and NOT the facts.
However, in my opinion this is very much a case in point of socialistic activity. Socialism simply means that the production and distribution of goods (in this case, heathcare) is run by a centralized government (or by a community) which artificially controls the cost. While this one bill is certainly not the sole creator of a socialist society, regulated economics do not even bear resemblance to true capitalism.
Also, the government does not have the power to place legal requirements on services a business offers-suggesting that they have the power to force insurance companies to accept clients or adopt a certain set of rules is a violation of the Constitution (as are any regulations on business not based in the Constitution).
I agree with you that it is ridiculous that we have spent $3 trillion overseas. However, that does not justify spending $500 billion on health care. That's like saying that my husband overdrew our bank account by a few trillion dollars so I deserve to go on my own shopping spree. Overdrawn is overdrawn-debt is debt-this nation has no business spending money it does not have on ANYTHING.
Still, while we disagree, you spoke very intelligently. Nice writing!
September 5, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Don't you just hate it when you post a nice, intelligent comment and it disappears off into cyberspace. The second attempt is never quite as good as the first. Anyhow, I shall try. As someone who considers themselves a mmoderate and enjoys making fun of GOPMamma's boyfriend, Glenn Beck, as much as possible I have to say I am gonna love this blog. I agreed with alot of point that MCB made, especially the whole death panel issue. I hate it when the extremists loonies who are in the public eyeleech onto a topic and use it to scare others into taking their side. But what I truly have to disagree with is the whole taxing the rich to make up for the cost concept. Our family makes nowhere near what the upper eschelon does partly because I, gasp, stay home to raise my own children. However, I do know people who are in the upper tax bracket and they worked their butts off to get there. Why should they get taxed more than me just because they were financially successful? They are members of this country who deserved to be treated just as fairly as the poor. (See I know I wrote something more eloquent the first time around but you get my point). I truly look forward to hearing what red and green have to say about all of this.
September 5, 2009 at 10:04 AM
LOL Sh.ttthatmymouthsays! I hate when that happens!
No one should make fun of my boyfriend :0}
Thanks for pointing that out about the "rich". I have a lot of small business owners in my family and believe me, they got there the hard way. Our government is ever so slowly putting them out of business...
September 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Ace said...
September 6, 2009 12:17 PM
Hi Miss Lib R T., I would disagree with Health Care reform being characterized as a socialist activity. Socialism implies government ownership and distribution of products. The school system might be considered socialist--and it's worth pointing out that the school system and other government programs are largely responsible for the existence of today's middle class, and as a result, the success of our capitalist society (which has never been truly capitalist).
Obama's plan is a regulatory system to ensure universal coverage and minimize profiteering by insurance companies (seriously, look at their balance sheets). I certainly have doubts that a public insurance option would be able to compete, but the fact that a public option would have to compete with private insurers sounds very capitalistic to me.
And if the government doesn't have a right to regulate products and services produced by businesses, the FED, FDA, and EPA have been very naughty indeed.
September 6, 2009 at 2:53 PM
The government would own it's own insurance company (and unfairly destroy their competition through taxation and regulation an anti-capitalistic move). It would then distribute that product at an artificial cost.
Yeah, that's socialism in my mind.
Obama's plan is to MANDATE universal health care coverage, by law (a power which the US Government does not have). Also, for the record, I have absolutely no problem with "profiteering"-which is in my mind simply a derogatory term used for capitalistic ventures that people get sore over because they make "unfair" amounts of money by doing "unfair" things (like raising their prices to reflect market worth).
Lastly, you're right about the FED, FDA, and EPA. I would also add (off the top of my head)the IRS and the SEC. All of these alphabet soup agencies are direct violations of capitalism and free market values, have no authority to act under Constitutional law, and in my opinion should be terminated.
September 6, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Medicare (government subsidized) is an example of socialized insurance. The Veteran Health Administration (government owned hospitals and government paid doctors) is an example of socialized medicine. Obama has said any public insurance option would need to be self-sustaining. In other words, he's suggesting the US government finance the start up of a non-profit; not socialized insurance or medicine.
Also, I was using the term profiteering in the literal sense. By selling insurance to people unlikely to get sick, and denying insurance to people likely to get sick; insurance companies have earned a profit unethically.
As far as constitutional law goes, I can only plead ignorance. While I agree government mandates can reduce personal freedoms, this isn’t one of them. People don’t stop getting health care just because they don’t have health insurance; they just wait until something is bad enough to go to the emergency room (while missing out on less expensive preventative care). The tab is picked up by everyone else; be it through taxes or increased prices. There is a car insurance mandate for the exact same reason.
September 6, 2009 at 11:33 PM
He might have said that, but the language of this bill does not create it to be self sustaining.
In the respect you meant it insurance of ANY kind is profiteering. Car insurance companies deny coverage or charge exorbitant fees to people they feel are more likely to get in car accidents. Home insurance costs more if the insurance company feels you have risk factors for damage. No other insurance company anywhere is required to cover anyone, and people get denied all the time. That's just how business works, and it should be allowed to do so.
This reduces personal freedoms in many ways. True, the creation of government health care itself is unConstitutional (this includes Medicare and Medicaid as well) and but has no significant affect on one's personal freedoms-it's the oppressive taxation, the collection of personal data, and the abridgment of your right to freely own and operate a business (all in this bill) that would be violating the People's liberties.
September 7, 2009 at 1:03 AM
Actually, it is clearly stated in Subtitle B, section 222:
“The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premiums...at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option."
"The Secretary shall provide for the repayment of the startup funding provided under subparagraph (A) to the Treasury in an amortized manner over the 10-year period beginning with Y1. Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing any additional appropriations to the Account, other than such amounts as are otherwise provided with respect to other Exchange-participating health benefits plans."
I would agree with you about the profiteering if current industry practices didn't lead to preventable deaths. Again, I can't verify your claims of unconstitutionality, but why aren't Republicans pursuing that avenue of attack?
September 7, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Thank you for bringing that to my attention! Still, I don't think it's right that people will be paying taxes for this system even (and especially, if you take "rich" people into consideration) if they don't use it. That hardly seems self sustaining, though it may technically be that way on paper, since the money to pay for it is being taken from non-participating citizens.
Just because someone dies does not mean that the government can take/create powers not enumerated to them in the Constitution-this applies equally to the Republican's "War on Terror" and the Democrat's "Universal Healthcare". The 10th Amendment specifically states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Meaning that each individual state must decide, with it's people, on each issue that arises not specifically covered in the Constitution.
I don't know why Republicans aren't going that direction with this argument-maybe because Bush started this whole thing? Maybe because they bend the Constitution to their will as well so they know it's a pot-and-kettle scenario? Who knows. Good question.
September 7, 2009 at 12:23 PM
I disagree with you. I make nowhere near $500,000, but if I did I wouldn't want people taking away my hard earned money. Most people getting paid that much have been in school for years and worked hard to get where they are. They shouldn't have to pay for people who won't work to get benefits.
The government is not able to run anything efficiently, how on earth would they run the health care industry and with what money? We are already broke!
September 7, 2009 at 4:13 PM
I think you're both right, and wrong. There ARE many people who expect to receive benefits off of other people's hard earned money (otherwise welfare would not exist), however there ARE ALSO people who work very hard and still don't have access to health insurance.
In my eyes, it all comes down to personal responsibility. If you want health care you absolutely should have to work for it. No one has a right to take another person's money (that's stealing). If you have a job without health insurance, and health care is a priority to you, then it must be you who takes personal responsibility to either demand health care from your employer or find new employment. If a company was unable to hire new workers because they did not offer competitive benefits, then they would eventually have to change their practices.
Everyone (including small business owners) chooses their own career of their own free will-and if it does not provide the benefits they are seeking it is only because of their own decisions, which they absolutely have the power to change.
September 7, 2009 at 7:23 PM
The trouble is, that is exactly fair. It might not be pleasant to hear, but in order to be truly fair people should only have what they are able to create or purchase for themselves. If you really want to talk about unfair how unfair is it that someone works their butt off, finally manages to make $500,000 or more a year, and then gets taxed to death for services they don't even qualify for? Taking money from hard working people without their consent and with no benefit to them? By any standard that cannot be seen as just or fair, and by most standards, that is thievery.
Yes, I am willing to dispose of my own waste, provide for my children's educations, pay for private fire and security forces and for roads all out of my own pocket-since if I were doing that, it would mean that I was not being taxed for it and would be able to put my money only to uses and causes that I deemed worthy or necessary-which I happen to think include those services.
Thomas Jefferson was pretty clear about his feelings on government, and it is apparent to me that he believed as I do-that the government should be small and out of the business of the people:
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. "
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not"
"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive"
"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."
"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
I could continue, but I'm pretty sure you see what I mean.
September 7, 2009 at 9:23 PM
I believe that some of these issues could be easily remedied if Congress used the Commerce Clause and allowed for access to the well over 1600+ insurance policies throughout our country, which would allow for competition in the health industry.
I also believe that there are certainly health insurance companies that WILL cover pre-exsisting conditions, you just have to be able to access them and under our current system, it's just not possible.
Having a healthcare account is another solution which would allow individuals to have control over their own healthcare... decisions would then be made by yourself and your physician only. No govt involvement necessary.
September 8, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Dear Readers,
Our resident Democrat has decided to leave the site. I have left this post up so that you may continue your conversations, but her name has been removed at her request. Any comments containing reference to her name have been deleted and reposted with linked credit going to the original author, except for her responding comments, which have all been grouped together below with no link to her. I apologize for any inconvenience, and wish our Liberal friend the best of luck in all of her writing pursuits.
Sincerely,
Ms Lib R. Tea, Site Admin
September 8, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Democrat Guest Writer's Comments:
(To Ace) Good eyes, Ace, I will have the blog administrator person fix that error.
(To Nooklerman) also, nooklerman, there are two notable industries that still thrive despite a government run system. the private education system, and private mail companies. both do well despite being a national alternative.
good points though. especially on 3.
(To General) Just so no one thinks I hate the rich, I too have several family members who run "small" businesses that bring in a profit likely to be taxed by HR3200. One relative pointed out that the tax breaks they recieve as successful small business owners far outways the taxes they would pay for HR 3200. I think a lot of highly successful business people use a lot of community/government resources to get there.
(To Jenny) disagree with obama's policy all you want jenny, but do not insinuate that hr 3200 gives health insurance to people who don't work. do. not.
i work. hard. i went to school for a long time. my job can't offer me benefits.
my husband works. hard. as a small business owner. you want to protect small business owners? give them access health insurance.
assuming that people without health insurance aren't working as hard as they can is down right offensive. disagree with obama, but don't tell me i don't work.
(To Lib R. Tea)now that isn't exactly fair either. "if your job doesn't give you benefits, find another job." especially in this economy, i was lucky to find ANY employment, and after six months of searching and searching, i will take whatever i can get.
but even if we could find new jobs, neither my husband and i will ever be accepted by private health insurance. my husband has deep vein thrombosis, a high risk pre-existing condition. EVERY single insurance company rejected him. not even offered insurance if we paid tons and tons of money.
i have lupus, and face the same situation.
and though this refers more to the comment on the other post, are you really willing to take out all your waste, sort it, develop your own enviromentally sound landfill in your backyard, all out of pocket?
thomas jefferson chose to rebel against a country that did not do enough. he wanted a responsible government, not an absentee one. (hence why he worked so hard to change the articles of confederation.)
in order to be truly fair, i wouldn't be born with a fairly debilitating genetic condition, thus rendering me a viable canidate for private health insurance.
your right, discrimination based on how i was born is "unpleasant to hear," and especially unpleasant to hear rationalized.
lastly, i am not asking the government to buy my groceries, pay my bills, or bail me out. i am asking to see a doctor. to persue the LIFE part of life, liberty, and hapiness.
i'm a second-class citizen in the country i pay taxes in.