Reality: House bill would transform American health care system.

[ProSense]

2) OPT-OUT.—In no case may an employer automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer. An employer shall provide an employee with a 30-day period to make such an affirmative election before the employer may automatically enroll the employee in such a plan.

HR 3962 (full bill, PDF)

Once an individual or an employer enrolls in coverage through the Exchange, they remain eligible for Exchange coverage even if circumstances change that would otherwise exclude them.

PDF


Chances are that once people are exposed to the health coverage after reform, they're going to love it. Just like the Mass. plan, which health reform critics mischaracterize as RomneyCare. There is no such thing:

In fall 2005 as the House and Senate each passed health care reform bills.

The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers. The legislature also rejected Governor Romney's proposal to permit even higher-deductible, lower benefit health plans.

On April 12, 2006 Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.<19> He vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.<20><21> Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.<22><23> The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.<24>

link

Romney actually opposed most of the bill after the legislature improved it. Now, while it has it's flaws, people love it.

"Seven in 10 people in the state support the program, and no more than one in 10 would repeal it." said Robert Blendon with the Harvard University School of Public Health.

Unlike Democratic proposals that would give Americans the choice of joining a government-run health care plan, Massachusetts has no public option. Instead, people in the state are required to buy private insurance, and the poor get subsidies.

Summary: The status quo is not an option, and the House health bill is a vast improvement over modest reform. It's going to transform the American health care system, and people are going to love it.

[Cleita]

1. It has some good stuff in it, but not offering Medicare to all who

want to buy into it, is a big mistake, IMHO.

[Oregone]

2. You are a total drag to our group-think

:)

[ProSense]

9. "It has some good stuff in it..."

but should fail because it doesn't go far enough?

[Cleita]

11. I didn't say that.

So don't put words in my mouth. However, in your research, you will find that there are greater minds than mine, who are very knowledgeable about the subject, who have said it WILL fail, not that it should fail.

[ixion]

3. mandated insurance? no way in hell I'm going to be happy about that

and from what I've read, I'll be paying more for it, too.

Some reform. :eyes:

[quiet.american]

5. What's the big deal? nt

[ixion]

6. being forced by penalty of law to give money to insurance companies

that is the big deal.

[quiet.american]

7. You do that now, don't you? Where do you get your insurance? nt

[ixion]

10. now, I have a choice

to be covered or not. I'm not a fan of government mandates, that's just the way it is.

[quiet.american]

12. Not sure why someone would deliberately choose not to be covered -- but okay. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Because being a charity case is cheaper.

It's completely rational.

[ixion]

16. don't put words in my mouth

you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. I answered the posters question.

It is economically rational to rely on the kindness of strangers, particularly when it's backed up by force of law. An uninsured individual is legally entitled to charity care from hospitals.

Those of us who purchase coverage are currently the ones with the mandate - to pay for those who don't.

[ixion]

30. Let me be clear:

I don't want government "kindness". I want the freakin' government to stay the hell out of my life.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Well now that's irrational.

You're the first person I've known who really would rather die from an illness than buy insurance.

Most of the people I've met who "don't want the government interfering in their life", (by forcing them to participate in the system) really just want the benefits without the responsibilities.

I salute you for sticking up for your principles.

[ixion]

52. actually, it's more akin to not wanting to feed a corrupt system

of which insurance is only a part.

Our "healthcare" system is corrupt entirely. All this bill does is mandate that corruption. Joy.

In any case, I appreciate your respect of my principles, even though you may not agree.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

22. Uh, lack of money?

:shrug:

Keep wasting my money on food, rent and heating bills I guess.

[quiet.american]

23. That's not a deliberate choice, though. That's circumstances. nt

[maryf]

37. So is getting sick and needing health care

circumstances, and when you can't afford it...what do you do? get sicker? maybe die? does this bill take care of that for more than 2% more??? Nope.

[quiet.american]

38. Actually, yes it does. And immediately.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you -- I don't have insurance because I can't afford it ($750/month was what I was quoted).

The National High Risk pool will immediately be open to all Americans and it will provide for those who have not had insurance within the last six months, for those who have been dropped or denied from coverage, for those whose coverage through their employers is higher than the rate for the high risk pool, and for those who have current urgent health issues that need to be addressed.

And by the way, to clarify my original question -- it was to ask, why would one deliberately want to walk around without health insurance if it were available to you?

Not being able to afford it is another thing entirely, and a situation with which I am intimately acquainted.

[maryf]

47. I have decent coverage actually...

Its others I'm worried about, the mandate is criminal...

[quiet.american]

49. I'm sorry, but I can't take that as anything but a twisted interpretation.

Unless you're also offering to put up the funds to insure everyone in the U.S.

The more of a hardship people are experiencing, the higher the subsidy. People can qualify for a credit that will pay up to 97% of their premium, and/or qualify with a hardship exemption from having to enroll in an insurance program.

In the meantime, they will be protected from bankruptcy due to healthcare needs, and will have access to healthcare.

What's criminal about that?

[Mari333]

43. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people on DU dont realize

that many people in this country can barely pay for their food water and heat let alone insurance costs. They must live in a bubble.

[maryf]

48. with blinders on...nt

[quiet.american]

50. So why don't you then want them to have access to healthcare.

These are the very people who will be eligible for public option/affordability credits. The more of a hardship they are experiencing, the higher the subsidy. They can qualify for a credit that will pay up to 97% of the premium, and/or qualify with a hardship exemption from having to enroll in an insurance program.

[ProSense]

13. You don't have health coverage by choice? n/t

[ixion]

15. there have been times in my life where I chose not to have insurance

and I value that choice.

[ProSense]

17. Do you currently have insurance, and where do you get it?

I believe that was the original question related to the notion that people will be forced to give insurance companies money.

[ixion]

18. Yes, I have it now

I pay for it... by choice. All this piece-of-crap legislation will do is mandate that I pay more for something I don't want.

[ProSense]

21. "All this piece-of-crap legislation will do is mandate that I pay more for something I don't want."

Why will you be paying more? There is no truth in that at all.

[ixion]

29. we'll see...not one of the estimates that I've read is anywhere near what I pay..

the lowest was more than 3 times greater.

[kid a]

53. K & R

[TicketyBoo]

20. If you live here,

there is really no choice, unless you choose not to go to a doctor even when sick or injured, because the doctors, clinics, and hospitals charge triple for people who don't have insurance. So, unless you just opt to never go to the doctor or hospital, no matter how badly you need it, you basically are opting for bankruptcy if you ever need health care with no insurance.

[ixion]

31. that's right... I would choose not to go

n/t

[TicketyBoo]

51. Sometimes

you don't have a say in the matter.

Visualize this: car crash. You are unconscious. The ambulance scoops you up and takes you to the hospital. They determine that you need a flight-for-life to a larger hospital 200 miles away.

If you are fortunate enough to live, you are now bankrupt. And it was all completely out of your control.

It's why I can't feature not having health insurance.

We own our own home, and I want to keep it that way. I know two families here who lost their homes over medical bills. We drive a ten-year-old car so we can afford health insurance.

[Actionman]

8. read the dem plan not the repub mess

and you will not be sick unless you want to...

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Catapult awayyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!

[Stinky The Clown]

24. We didn't have to end up here with a halfway bill

We could have **started** with single payer instead of starting with a massive compromise and compromising more.

All I see is us having given away a bunch of things and then having them vote "No" anyhow.

I call that "stupid".

[ProSense]

25. That's a fallacy

We could have ended up with no health care reform. Look how many so-called Dems are fighting a public option.

[Cleita]

28. What public option?

There is no public option. It's more means testing and class discrimination. Only people dragging their chins to the ER will qualify for the so-called public option.

[Cleita]

27. The OP has been

belligerent about this from the beginning. No amount of pointing out the "stupid" has been effective.

[ProSense]

34. "belligerent "?

You're running around claiming there is no public option and mischaracterizing the bill and you have the nerve to call someone belligerent?

Really?

Get your facts together, and try to base your arguments on the actually facts not your spin.

[Cleita]

35. Oh, I'm not the only person running around claiming there is no

PO. As a matter of fact I and others who are disheartened by this bill aren't running around at all being it's the cyber world. However, that being said, I hope this bill passes. There are good things for ME in it and then I will attack the rest in the years to come.

[Cleita]

26. I will try again and I will try to keep it civil.

There is much in this bill that benefits me, a Medicare recipient. But since I have never been an "I got mine, the Hell with you" type of person, I feel it short changes many of the people who need it most.

[ProSense]

32. You're just upset for other people?

The millions of Americans who will finally get coverage, including the unemployed and those who are among the bottom income earners, but who are currently paying the same rate as everyone else, will certainly not feel short changed.

[Cleita]

36. And what about the millions who won't?

a Medicare for All option would have taken care of those who will be left behind and underinsured.

[ProSense]

39. Your argument doesn't hold water

Hacker also predicted that seniors would oppose opening the program to younger Americans and explained that Medicare was not designed “to provide health security to a younger than 65 population.” “There are a lot of holes in the Medicare program that should be fixed but which aren’t going to be fixed immediately. One of the important reasons to have a separate insurance plan is to make sure you’re providing the kind of good coverage that you know younger Americans need,” Hacker said.

“Ultimately though, we should understand the public health insurance plan idea, and Medicare as being very much interrelated. That over time, we should see this public health insurance plan and Medicare as a way of improving the cost effectiveness and the quality of care delivered to both younger Americans and to those over 65.”

link

Any plan put forth, from Medicare for all to single payer, have issues related to cost and loopholes, and also needs time to ramp up.

It's just silly to argue that this bill is the only one that has to deal with these issues.

[Cleita]

41. Water is mutable. My argument holds concrete. You can't disagree without

looking like you aren't thinking through things clearly. Medicare was designed to cover the population. Johnson could only get it for seniors. There was hope it would cover the whole population down the line.

[ProSense]

42. Ah, LBJ wanted it to, but couldn't

The legislative process is something that you can't seem to come to grips with. Any bill, would have problems and be subjected to amendments, cost analyses, etc.

[Cleita]

44. Don't you think that forty years after LBJ that we should be

moving on and up?

[ProSense]

45. We are moving up, or do you not consider national coverage progress?

This is the first time in history that this country will have universal health care. Period.

[Cleita]

46. See that's the problem. It's not universal until it covers everyone with

comprehensive, quality healthy care regardless of an individuals ability to pay.

[maryf]

40. Oh my, all those 2% more? maybe?

and where do they get the money to pay for this? one way, from tapping into Medicare!!! wow, lets make things tougher on the elderly... (single payer would have improved and expanded Medicare and covered everyone... ::(: )

6 million, maybe, out of 50... and who's going to benefit the most? The bill writers of course, the Insurance companies...