United States Healthcare Reform

[quatoria]

These lawsuits - and every other tactic we’ll see in days to come - have nothing to do with any actual legality or illegality of the bill. They are purely a political delaying tactic, an effort to prevent people from reaping the benefits of the health-care bill for as long as possible, and forever, if possible. Florida is trying to pass a constitutional amendment exempting its citizens from the bill. In unrelated news, I’m making plans to get the fuck out of this misbegotten state as quickly as fucking possible.

[Pogo]

Yeah but is what they are claiming true? Are they going to be saddled with hundreds of millions in debt or is this a call for everyone to start cutting their budgets in order to fulfill a government mandate?

[Eric_T_Cheng]

These lawsuits - and every other tactic we’ll see in days to come - have nothing to do with any actual legality or illegality of the bill. They are purely a political delaying tactic, an effort to prevent people from reaping the benefits of the health-care bill for as long as possible, and forever, if possible. Florida is trying to pass a constitutional amendment exempting its citizens from the bill. In unrelated news, I’m making plans to get the fuck out of this misbegotten state as quickly as fucking possible.

So shouldn’t the Democrats use this fodder in the next elections? “Look who’s denying you health care!”

[Hawkeye_Fierce]

That presumes that the Democrats are at all competent at calling the GOP on their shit.

[MikeSofaer]

I suspect you will see the insurance companies filing Amicus briefs with the Government on this one. The best provisions of this bill (no rescission, shall issue) are clearly Constitutional, and the worst (the mandate) is much less clear. This could turn out highly awesome.

[Eric_P]

I think it would be silly if Democrats did all this work just to have it be illegal. Surely they have to have something planned to backup the legality.

after accidentally getting a kenyan into office, i wouldn’t put any sort of negligence past the dlc

[wahoo]

Yeah but is what they are claiming true? Are they going to be saddled with hundreds of millions in debt or is this a call for everyone to start cutting their budgets in order to fulfill a government mandate?

Yes. The Fed is gonna pick up 90% of Medicaid but for states with a large Medicaid population already, that’s a pretty sizable chunk. I think it could increase CA’s budget deficit by another 10% for example.

I remember last fall Gregoire, D-Gov-Wash and Barbour-R-Gov-MS, went to the White House to argue that the mandate was gonna be really tough on states. That’s why the fed govt is picking up a higher share of the Medicaid expansion.

I expect states might try to tighten eligibility restrictions on Medicaid but it’s going to hit state budgets hard. I think Mcaid is already the biggest cost driver of states.

[Cubit]

Gallup just released the results of a new poll:

As you may know, yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that restructures the nation’s healthcare system. All in all, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that Congress passed this bill?

Good thing 49%
Bad thing 40%
Don’t know 11%

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/gallup-americans-now-view-health-plan-favorably/

[inactive_user]

Turns out the sausage is more delicious when you’re not watching pig bits go through the grinder, eh? Who woulda thought?

[Houngan]

BTW, I’ve found an incredibly effective technique for defusing the right-wing insano posts on a message board. Since this is the only board on which I am political but I post to a lot of firearms-related boards (with exactly the kind of politics you would suppose) I’m ever so gently correcting one little fact ("Hmm, looks like that doesn’t actually take effect until 2014) then posting a link to a big summary post from a number of sources.

I’ve managed to completely quench the healthcare thread in a day despite it having gems like this:

Times are changing comrades. We are going to be Union States of America. I’m going to change the first aid box to read second aid box because that is what bho wants for us. The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.

That’s about a C on the crazy test for the thread.

H.

[Houngan]

Gallup just released the results of a new poll:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/gallup-americans-now-view-health-plan-favorably/

Shouldn’t that be plumb line?

H.

[Cubit]

Shouldn’t that be plumb line?

H.

No. It is a Gallup poll, highlighted by plumb line.

[Pogo]

BTW, I’ve found an incredibly effective technique for defusing the right-wing insano posts on a message board. Since this is the only board on which I am political but I post to a lot of firearms-related boards (with exactly the kind of politics you would suppose) I’m ever so gently correcting one little fact ("Hmm, looks like that doesn’t actually take effect until 2014) then posting a link to a big summary post from a number of sources.

Ok so… what’s the summary post?

[RSofaer]

Close, Houngan, it’s like a plumb line, but more delicious.

[milo]

Take my fucking word for it - if there’s any possible way you can afford medical insurance, do so, regardless of how low you think the odds are that you’ll need it. All it takes is one accident, one fuck-up, one piece of bad luck, genetically or otherwise, without insurance, and your life is effectively ruined forever. You’ll be dealing with a long term condition, saddled with crippling expenses, effectively uninsurable, and paying out of fucking pocket for every fucking cent - which also means paying generally higher rates on procedures and doctor visits. The odds of that sickness, injury, or catastrophe may be low - but the costs of being uninsured if it happens are higher than you can possibly realize right now.

I thought that part of this HCR plan was to prevent people from becoming “effectively uninsurable” due to accident or disease. I thought that was the whole point of the no pre-existing condition exclusions requirement in the bill.

In fact, some people are already doing the calculus to determine how much money they can save by just paying the fine and then “hopping on” an insurance policy when and if they do get really sick. Since they cannot be denied coverage, they figure they can save a lot of money that way.

Voluntarily going without insurance to save money in the short term is a fool’s bet in modern America.

That said, I agree with this. I think there are reasons other than money to carry health insurance and to take advantage of regular preventative care. Who knows when that annoying cough that won’t go away will turn out to be aggressive inoperable lung cancer instead of a lingering post nasal drip.

Also, what happens if you are seriously injured in an accident and need emergency surgery while uninsured? Of course you could still pick up an insurance policy after the fact, but you would be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars of fees already incurred. “Hey doc, can you just keep my severed leg on ice for a few days? I’m applying for health insurance to cover the reattachment surgery…”

There is something to be said for peace of mind, after all.

[BennyProfane]

I thought that part of this HCR plan was to prevent people from becoming “effectively uninsurable” due to accident or disease. I thought that was the whole point of the no pre-existing condition exclusions requirement in the bill.

In fact, some people are already doing the calculus to determine how much money they can save by just paying the fine and then “hopping on” an insurance policy when and if they do get really sick. Since they cannot be denied coverage, they figure they can save a lot of money that way.

That said, I agree with this. I think there are reasons other than money to carry health insurance and to take advantage of regular preventative care. Who knows when that annoying cough that won’t go away will turn out to be aggressive inoperable lung cancer instead of a lingering post nasal drip.

Also, what happens if you are seriously injured in an accident and need emergency surgery while uninsured? Of course you could still pick up an insurance policy after the fact, but you would be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars of fees already incurred. “Hey doc, can you just keep my severed leg on ice for a few days? I’m applying for health insurance to cover the reattachment surgery…”

There is something to be said for peace of mind, after all.

Exactly the point I was trying to make above: there are undoubtedly going to be those who try to game the system, most likely 20-something males who consider themselves invincible and think it makes more sense to pay a fine than to pay for the coverage. And the only way I can see to stop them succeeding is to either a) absolutely refuse to treat them for anything if they don’t have insurance and can’t come up with the cash up-front (because otherwise, you’ll just end up with people with huge bills they refuse to pay) or b) you treat them, but assess them the cost of health insurance retroactive to the beginning of this new program (at which point, again, you are likely to end up with people with huge bills they refuse to pay).

I just don’t see how you can enforce it otherwise. It has to be universal, mandatory and enforceable/enforced in order to spread the risk pool correctly.

[Dan_Theman]

I thought that part of this HCR plan was to prevent people from becoming “effectively uninsurable” due to accident or disease. I thought that was the whole point of the no pre-existing condition exclusions requirement in the bill.

In fact, some people are already doing the calculus to determine how much money they can save by just paying the fine and then “hopping on” an insurance policy when and if they do get really sick. Since they cannot be denied coverage, they figure they can save a lot of money that way.

Interesting approach that I honestly hadn’t thought of, but it makes a lot of sense that people will be trying to game the system like that. Of note is that while I’ve heard that companies will not be allowed to deny coverage for prexisting illnesses, I’ve yet to hear that they can’t jack your rates up because of them. Anyone have insight on that facet of the bill?

[Papageno]

BTW, did anyone else hear that Washington state’s Republican Attorney general joined in the suit by a bunch of other (surprise!) Republican AGs against the new HCR law? This despite the fact that neither the Governor nor the Legislature of that state has (have?) directed him to do any such thing. I guess come his next election that guy will be out of a job.

[bago]

Apparently HCR is now a big fucking tshirt.

[JeffL]

Of note is that while I’ve heard that companies will not be allowed to deny coverage for prexisting illnesses, I’ve yet to hear that they can’t jack your rates up because of them. Anyone have insight on that facet of the bill?

I’ve read the bills (can’t say I’ve read every word - they are DAMNED long) and don’t see how they will keep insurance companies from jacking up rates. This was one of my objections early on, and what I perceived as another way the Senate was playing footsies with the insurance lobbies.

And this is one thing that would really hurt Democrats in the elections - if people see the bill passed, then suddenly see their rates start skyrocketing. Yeah, they should look at the good stuff, but for the vast majority of the voting public, all they would immediately see/feel is that this bill has cost them a lot of money out of their pocket. Of course, the Republicans would get great traction out of that.