H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, passed the House last night, 220 for and 215 against. Every Republican except one voted against it. There were 39 Democrats that voted against it. The Senate now has to pass their version of the bill.
So what’s this mean? Here’s a list of some of the key provisions of the bill (from CBS News’ Political Hotsheet):
- Creates a public health insurance option and a national exchange for the uninsured and small businesses to purchase health insurance. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals on reimbursement rates.
- The bill includes mandates for individuals to purchase and businesses to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Individual penalty is 2.5 percent of gross income unless they get a waiver. Businesses that don’t offer insurance pay a fine equal to 8 percent of their payroll. Businesses with a payroll of less than $500,000 are exempt from the mandate.
- Insurance companies are prohibited from denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. There are caps on deductibles and annual out of pocket spending is capped at $5000.
- Allows individuals up to 27-years-old to stay on their parent’s health insurance
- As amended, it prohibits federal funds from covering abortions. Women would need to purchase riders to insurance purchased on the exchange if they wanted that coverage.
- The bill taxes individuals making more than $500,000 and $1 million for couples. It is a 5.4 percent tax.
The public option will only be open to people who do not have insurance. I’m not sure how this will actually save money, but then again, I’m not an economist. It seems to me that if the goal was to lower health care costs, the public option should be open to everyone. The more people that are enrolled in the non-profit, government run health insurance, the less costly it will be.
I don’t like the provision that will fine people who choose not to purchase insurance. I think fining someone 2.5% of their gross income if they choose to go uninsured is too low. That’s less then they would pay for health insurance. If the goal is to get people to sign up for health insurance, then the fine should be something substantially higher then what they would pay for health insurance. If the fine is too low, some will choose to pay the fine. I also don’t like forcing businesses to offer insurance. Once again, a robust public option open to everyone would allow businesses to get out of the health insurance business and instead concentrate on their business.
I like the part about capping out-of-pocket expenses. I like it a lot. I’m just concerned that it’s too low. Five grand a year is a lot of money if you just don’t have it. The goal is to stop forcing people into bankruptcy if and when something catastrophic happens to them. Don’t get me wrong, a $5,000 cap is better than no cap.
The part about not covering abortions was put in the bill to appeal to members of the anti-abortion party, also known as the Republican party. A lot of good it did. All but one Republican voted against the bill. The bill does allow abortion in cases of rape, incest or where the life of a mother is threatened. How exactly does that work? Say a woman is raped and as a result, she becomes pregnant. Just how then is she to get her insurance to pay for the procedure? Does she have to first wait until her rapist is caught and then tried in a court of law? If her rapist is acquitted, does that mean she wasn’t raped? Also, how does one go about proving that the pregnancy is a result of incest? The whole thing seems incredibly stupid to me.
Lee B.
/ November 8, 2009“The bill includes mandates for individuals to purchase and businesses to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Individual penalty is 2.5 percent of gross income unless they get a waiver.”
Yeah- yet another TAX. But don’t call it a tax, ’cause the president said it’s not. You can’t just go around calling taxes taxes.
I hope the rest of the bill truly helps everyone who needs it and that this exercise amounts to real reform. But I know several younger relatives that do not have insurance, don’t need insurance right now, and who are going to suffer from the “must have” tax. In a place like NY where we get taxed right left and center, 2.5% is pretty significant.
Rick Rottman
/ November 8, 2009@Lee B.: That’s the thing, everyone needs insurance. Just because someone is young doesn’t mean that they wont get into an automobile accident that will result in thousands of dollars in hospital bills. When they cannot pay, the cost of their medical care not only puts them massively in debt, the cost ends up getting picked up by the people that have insurance.
I think the notion that some in our country don’t need insurance is part of the problem. And the fine is not a tax, no more than paying a speeding ticket is a tax.
Lee B.
/ November 8, 2009Is your blog- and I consider you a friend.
So I abstain from further discussion on the topic, but respect your right to an opinion and admire your passion for what you believe in.
Rick Rottman
/ November 8, 2009@Lee B.: Hey, I consider you a friend too Lee. I get the fact that you and I don’t agree on the whole health care thing, and that’s fine. I hope I didn’t give you the impression that you couldn’t share your views on that or any other subject. I actually like talking with people that don’t agree with me about things, especially when they are smarter than me. :)
Lee B.
/ November 14, 2009Interesting perspective:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/222795
Rick
/ November 14, 2009@Lee B.: What exactly makes his perspective so interesting? Most of it seems to be based around the emotional canard that everything Obama related equals bad. Obama wants to reform the way we do health care in this country so it must be bad.
Health care reform isn’t about Obama. It isn’t about Reed. It isn’t about Pelosi. It wasn’t about Hillary Clinton back in the early 90’s, but that didn’t stop the Insurance cartels from making it all about her.
Health care reform should be about finding a better way to handle the way Americans get health care. We spend far more money than any other country in the world, yet we don’t even provide health care for everyone. Experiencing a catastrophic health crisis often times results with the person going bankrupt, even if they have health insurance.
If the author of the Newsweek article has a better way of doing it, then I’d love to hear it. If he just wants to complain about Obama, well, I’d could just go to a TEA party rally.
Lee B
/ November 14, 2009The money part, and burying the costs in other bills is sort of interesting… To hide the fact that it is so outrageously expensive.
Rick
/ November 14, 2009@Lee B: But this bill isn’t about lowering costs. If that were the goal, we would simply extend Medicare for everyone:
http://bentcorner.com/2009/11/medicare-for-all/
Not only would it drastically lower the cost for health care in this country, it would allow every American to have access to quality health care.
It would also mean the health insurance cartel would not be able to reap billions in profits. Because of this, it will never happen.
Lee B.
/ November 15, 2009I’m not defending it or making a point- just thought it was written in an interesting light.
It would be nice to see health insurance reform, which is what’s really needed.
Rick
/ November 15, 2009@Lee B.: But this bill does reform the health insurance industry. It would stop them from dropping someone because they get sick. It would do away with preexisting condition. It also caps out-of-pocket costs to a set dollar amount. This is a biggie. Too many people in this country either go massively in debt or end up having to declare bankruptcy if and when they become seriously sick or injured.
Lee B.
/ November 15, 2009Agreed completely- but this “reform” also drives the national debt even further through the stratosphere, and puts us more on the hook to nations like China that ultimately want us to fail as a nation (simple communist doctrine).
Ideally, reform would not drive up national debt with any significance. This plan as presented has been analyzed by everyone with a math degree and the results are frightening.
Rick
/ November 15, 2009@Lee B.: No, that’s not correct. Obama said that he will not sign a plan that adds one dime to the deficit — either now or in the future. No bill will become a law unless he signs it. Not that either party would be interested in presenting a bill to the President that increases deficits.
And do you honestly think China wants the United States to fail? Much of their economy is dependent on ours, both exports and imports. It is one of the reasons they invest in U.S. bonds.
Lee B.
/ November 15, 2009That was the point of the newsweek article- Obama will not a sign a health care bill that increases spending. Technically true. So the spending that is required for it to function is being moved to other bills. So in true DC fashion, he can keep his word about not signing a health care bill that increases debt. Because the bet has been relocated.
And Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman.
Rick
/ November 15, 2009@Lee B.: That doesn’t make any sense. Why would anything covered in H.R. 3962 increase deficits? Even those that are able to participate in the public option will be buying their insurance. They wont be receiving anything free or paid for by tax payers.
And if Obama is lying, what bill is he planning to have the secret costs of health care reform to? Is there any proof of this?
Lee B.
/ November 15, 2009The secret costs are not so secret, and it’s not a single bill they are being moved to. This is a massive spending increase that will have to be funded somehow. (And I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be, before you shellac me.) My point is that the truth about the costs are being with fast and loose on an epic scale.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/healthcare_reform_taxes/2009/11/13/285952.html
video here: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid36248839001?bctid=50118326001
And check out the games being played with HR 3200.
Rick
/ November 15, 2009@Lee B.: Come on Lee, someone from the Heritage Foundation giving Newsmax an “exclusive” interview is what you are basing your belief on? All due respect, thats like basing a belief on something you read on a sign at a tea bagger protest.
That’s not proof, that’s just conjecture from a man that has an ax to grind.
Lee B.
/ November 15, 2009Geeze Rick- giving you one link as a quick example, but there are more. And more, And more.
But rather than quibble… given that you and I are men of action, if this thing passes, and does not increase the national debt when all of the smoke and mirrors and obscene donkey shows going on behind the scenes are done, I will buy you and the missus dinner.
Let’s give it say two years- if I’m wrong, steak and lobster or whatever your prefer is on me.
Lee B.
/ November 15, 2009@Lee B.: Sorry- I didn’t answer on China. I do believe that within my son’s generation, or their childrens’, China will make a military move against the US, They continue to grow their military capabilities, industrial and technological espionage is a huge priority, they probe our networks and power grid control systems frequently, and still are hardcore communists. And the communist doctrine is eventual world control, regardless of how long it takes to get there.
The Cold War never ended despite what optimistic politicians say.
These actions on their part are constant, and to me seems aimed at far more than simple sabre-rattling in the long-term:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE54363X20090504
Rick
/ November 15, 2009@Lee B.: Hey, you offer this because you probably found out that I’m married to a woman that doesn’t like steak or lobster. And I’m not so much a man of action anymore. I haven’t been for two months now. :)
I think at this point we should all – Republican and Democrat – is give our President the benefit of the doubt. He’s identified health care reform as something he would like to concentrate on. I for one have seen first hand that there’s room for lots of improvement in that department, so I know that it is a valid problem that needs to be addressed.
Will he be successful? I don’t know, but I can hope.
I don’t think he’s done anything yet that has earned our distrust.
Rick
/ November 15, 2009@Lee B.:I think China’s economy relies too much on our economy for them to ever try to bring us to ruin. With that said, my biggest fear with China is that they will eventually run out of women. For years now, China has had a one-child policy where married couples are only allowed one child. This results in couples getting abortions if and when they discover that the unborn child is female. If they are only allowed one child, they want a son. Mostly that’s because they expect a son to care for them financially in their golden years. If they had a daughter, they feel that her husband would only care for his parents, not his wife’s.
China already has a disproportionate amount of males compared to females. The problem is only getting worse. What will China do to fix this problem?
The possibilities are really quite scary.