That seems to be the "justification" point for this bill. If you are getting something out of this bill, you are probably glad it's moving ahead. If you're not, you probably want it to fail.
What will the final bill look like? That's the $64,000 question. Will it have a public option or Medicare buy-in? I think it will have to have some version of one of those to pass, and it will probably have some kind of anti-abortion language inserted to appease the "I wanna run your life" crowd.

What I need out of this bill-....I need relief! Already paying over $18K/yr in premiums for what is nothing more than catastrophic coverage with a pre-existing condition. Premiums account for about 20% of my after tax dollars. So, I need the pre-existing condition issue dealt with and some sort of premium reduction, whether by exchange, public option, or subsidy. I may get nothing, and I am prepared for that. At the very least, I need them to reign in increases in costs. I am surviving the $18K/yr premiums, but a medical hit could cost me up to $$28K/yr out-of-pocket, and that could be catastrophic were it to occur two yrs in a row!

What I expect out of this bill (read that as "my guess")-Some kind of exchange, some pre-existing condition rellief, and some subsidy relief for those who earn less. Most people will get nothing more than hope for cheaper prices in the future, and that will not set well for most. In order to drum up enough support for re-election, I think the bill will have to have some kind of "public option" in it for the dems. Anything short of that will be catastrophic for them in the next elections.

So, put me in the "I'm voting for the bill" camp. Even if I get no relief out of it, having tens of millions more covered under it is an improvement, and I know amendments can and will be made in the future. It is my belief that not passing the bill in some form will be just as catastrophic for the dems as passing a weak bill.

that is what is in it for most taxpayers.

Mandate is just a way to have insurance companies be the money launderers to funnel money to Wall Street. That IS what they do with premiums payments, invest in stocks.

Since the American public wouldn't stand for direct payment of income withholdings to Wall Street (we didn't fall for the 'privatized Social Security' scam) the Wall St employees on the Hill found a more convoluted route.

We the People are basically being taxed to hold up the pyramid scheme that Wall Street has become.

health care?

If more feel that their lot has been improved, the Dems will be saviors.

If more feel that they are paying more for less or the same, the Dems will be villains.

The Dems need to provide some apparatus for people like you - which is everyone- to simply find out if they are better off than they were before.

I personally feel that you have to be SIGNIFICANTLY better off for this to qualify for real reform.


It will all boiled down to "affordability"? Did the Senate craft something that most will find affordable?

This is very personal for me.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

There are many who will benefit in some form from this bill...and a reason why so many are in favor of passage no matter how flawed. It's a huge bill and its going to need to be modified over the years just as Social Security and Medicare did.

I have sympathy for those who feel totally screwed...I went many years without insurance due to the high cost and my low income. I also believe the biggest crisis is preventative care...so many either don't have coverage or have many obstacles to getting regular check up and to drive down costs through healhtier lives rather than the catastrophic system we have now. The setting up of clinics is a good first step, but as many of us boomers get older and costs aren't contained, the push on those clinics could force the issue of public option or single payer down the road. We shall see.

Personally, I'm self-insured and a good chance had there been a public option I would have kept my current policy. This was more for my kids and the many who aren't covered...and I can understand the anger and frustration many show here on how things have gone.

Again, the problem here is this bill got too politicized...it became a game unto itself as the need to pass a bill superceded what was in the bill. Obama underestimated the opposition to change and the need to pass the bill put him in a weak position that now has many upset. But it must be said that the political downsides of this Administration losing this game is big. Their hopes are those who are pissed now will have short memories and the fear of rushpublicans coming back to power will unite and energize the party next fall...we shall see.

This bill, which is paid for, will help tens of millions who do not have any insurance now. We are already paying for their care in the ER, where costs are outrageously high. Why not see them in clinics, where costs are lower, and provide them with some preventative care to lower overall costs. MAkes sense to me, even if I get nothing out of it. The republicans want you to think you are getting nothing but more taxes and less coverage. They have to. It's their only defense of just saying no to everything!
Even though getting insurance for another 30 million people, they have to demonize anything the dems pass. It's what they do. We know, because after eight years of control, they did nada, nothing, zip, to alleviate our healthcare woes.

pay our corporate owners for the opportunity to bankrupt people. We're so inconsistent..

Is that for a large family? If it's based on pre existing then won't this bill help, will you have to go to another policy, another company to take advantage of that?

I pay $1550/mo in premiums. Until we see a final bill, I'm not going to speculate. My wife had breast cancer 7 yrs ago. No signs of it sense, and we've only been to the doc a couple of times for small stuff. I did see a 5% reduction in premiums for next year, which is something I have never seen before, so maybe my ins co (Farm Bureau), is trying to apppease me not to leave them. I will be exploring all my options once the bill is passed.

Number one, it says that you have to have not been covered for the six months prior to entering the National high risk pool which will be available in 90 days.

Why? That means that the government is requiring someone in your position to intentionally create a doughnut hole for themsleves where you could be exposed to all kinds of medical and financial risks in order to qualify for the pool. I want the coverage for the uninsured with prior conditions, but the plan puts people like you in an untenable position.

2nd - the high risk pool is allowed a 4:1 age ratio. I also think this is just basic BS and will also probably make this coverage in name only for many.