What are the specifics of the health care reform plan as it stands TODAY?

[derby378]

I hear there's going to be a public option, then I hear no, it's being taken away and we're going to be forced into corporate insurance policies, then I hear assorted bullshit from Republicans trying to hog the mike. I've got sick family members to take care of. I can't watch television or read DU all the time. What is health care reform looking like at this moment, and should I be worried?

[mikelgb]

1. yes

[derby378]

2. But what are the specifics?

I've got Democratic activists wanting me to phonebank in favor of the reform package. What are the pluses and minuses I need to be aware of concerning the current plan?

[bkkyosemite]

5. It's up in the air. Ask those who are having you call what to say.

[DJ13]

3. Killed by the Blew(it) Dogs

[WI_DEM]

18. It's not killed yet

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. There are three of them, or five, or four, depending....

...one from the House, the tri-committee bill, which may exist in slightly different versions as it's marked up in the three committees, the Senate HELP commitee bill, and the Senate Finance working-group draft. (Senate Finance may or may not actually vote out that draft, something like, or something different.)

There is no one plan yet, nor will there be until the House-Senate conference report.

[derby378]

7. From what you understand of these competing plans...

...which one would give the best care to American citizens?

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. You could take HELP's bill...

...and HR 3200 into committee, and come out with something decent. It would be Swiss-ish, a little Dutch-y, with a German accent, but would make most peoples' lives better -- worse for a few, much, much better for a few.

(My personal preference is so unpopular in this country -- direct state provision -- that it makes single-payer look like apple pie and motherhod, though some veterans and others might disagree.)

[Ms. Toad]

17. Agreed - as long as the timetable is moved up.

I would also suggest it will be much much better for the majority of people (rather than just a few).

The two bills are very similar (at least as to the general public - I have not analyzed the Medicare provisions in either) - one of the differences is the timetable. HELP is implemented faster.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Currently their is the Senate Help Bill, HR3200 and the finance bill is due any time maybe.

None of them contain a strong public option, (CBO says up to 10 million enrolled in the House plans public option by 2019)all of them require people or their employers to purchase private insurance and all subsidize private insurance for low income people.

They all in many ways resemble the Romney Care law that is in effect in MA.


The House bill (HR3200) also contains the very good amendment that would allow states to set up their own single payer system if they choose to do so. I would support that bill as currently written if for no other reason than that.

However, the whole bill could certainly be strengthened as regards a functioning public option.

[derby378]

8. That's a sticking point for me, for sure

No strong public option, no health care reform. We either do it right the first time or we go back to the drawing board.

[sandnsea]

9. John Q will bash anything except single payer

I have subsidized insurance in Oregon and even that is a godsend.

There are two main plans being considered, Senate HELP plan which is Kennedy's, and the House plan. The Senate Finance Committee is going to release a plan, but I don't think it'll matter much. There's still a committee in the House that needs to release a plan, but Pelosi has threatened to bypass them if they don't get their shit together.

Lots of good info in here. I can't get it to copy so I haven't had time to pull info out that people have been asking for.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/healthreform_sbs_full.pdf

[derby378]

12. Single-payer is a great long-term goal...

...but may be too radical for even many Democrats to accept at this time.

From what I'm reading, a merge of HELP and HR3200 could be workable, as long as there's a strong public option.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. Sandnsea will protect the private insurance system to the bitter end if the Dem leadereship

orders her to.

I helped pass the Oregon bill that SandnSea calls a god send, but never mind about that.

SandnSea will attack the integrity of people who have worked their entire adult life on health care reform, if they don't toe the party line. Party ideology is the determining factor of anything SandnSea supports.

[derby378]

20. Guys, guys...

I know emotions are running high on this issue. I just want workable, egalitarian health care reform that works for the American people. I have my own list, but I know I'm not getting everything I want this time around, but if I can get my nachos with queso, sour cream, and guacamole, I can do without the chorizo and pico de gallo this time around.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Well, I'm not going to remain silent while my integrity or my friends integrity is impuned by a

party mouth piece.

I don't go around looking to engage sandnsea in debate, but if she wants to attack, i will respond.

[sandnsea]

23. Were you protecting private insurance when you did? n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Well there are two points of reform in all the bills as far as I can tell. One is guareenteed

issue, meaning insurance companies can't refuse to cover anyone, and two is varying degrees of community rating. Pure community rating means everyone pays the same amount for the same coverage regardless of any other factors (like age, health, previous claims, etc)

Also all the bills define a floor amount of basic coverage, I believe.

HR3200 also has an amendment attached to it currently that allows states to start their own statewide single payer system. I could support HR3200 just for that reason, assuming that remains a part of the bill.

[Ms. Toad]

15. They also ban cas on lifetime maximum coverage

and provide subsidies for people at the low end of the income scale. The particulars of the subsidy vary from bill to bill.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. Good point about the cas. As far as implementation date, (your other post)

it does seem like it's set up to be nullified if another administration comes in or if other circumstances change. It's almost as if it's written in to help Obama get another term instead of to quickly provide relief to the American people.

i agree that substantial reform would be achieved simply by instituting CAS, guaranteed issue and a high level of community rating.


The only political problem with that is that the insurance industry expects that in return for those things that they will get access to 40 million more mandated customers and subsidized customers at that.

[Ms. Toad]

24. The potential later nullification is definitely a concern

any congress can later change something this one does.

I'm far more concerned, though, about not providing immediate relief. Far too many people have no or inadequate access to health care. That is the reason given that we have to pass a bill so quickly (and I agree it is an immediate need). It seems disingenuous, at best, to insist that because people are dying or going bankrupt we have to pass it before the August recess - but it's perfectly fine to wait 3.5 years to help those dying or financially devastated individuals.

Well - if the insurance company expects the rest in return for access and parity, then let's give it to them now rather than 3.5 years from now.

[Ms. Toad]

26. That should be "caps" rather than "cas"

Just had a bout of klutzy fingers.

[Ms. Toad]

13. I can't support it until they do one of two things:

1. Move the effective date with respect to reform for the general public up (currently it is at 2013 for a few, with the rest phased in for either 4 or 5 years after that - I don't recall which at the moment)

2. Leave the schedule as it is, but superimpose restrictions on the insurance companies immediately: Accept all applicants, cover all pre-existing conditions, no caps on life-time coverage, and ban setting the premium based on health status. These restrictions are no-cost options which could be implemented immediately without impacting the bottom line. They would NOT increase coverage for the poor - but they would at least ensure that the middle class with enough money to buy coverage actually has access to at a cost that isn't jacked way up just because you happen to be unlucky enough to have an expensive (or perceived to be expensive) health condition.

I do like the single-payer amendment that permits states to experiment - but that alone doesn't provide enough immediate relief for people who are suffering.

[redqueen]

14. There are several different bills being worked on.

Nevermind, I see your question has been answered upthread.

[rucky]

19. It's a shell game.

doesn't matter what it is to day, because the only thing for sure is that they'll smudge it up even more with all their hammy thumbprints before it hits the floor.

[valerief]

25. We die, they keep their kingdoms. nt