Can Health Care "Reform" Be Effective Without A Public Option And With A Mandate?

Effective, as in "good for ALL Americans, not just some."

of the "reform" is to increase/protect insurer profits, then yes, it can be effective.

"Yes, effective for health insurance companies and big pharma."

Even without a public option, reform is reform.

One could even argue that some recent proposals - oversight of premium increases, elimination of the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies - would be as effective as a watered-down public option anyway.

It has been fashioned as the most pro-corporate bill the right wing of the Dem party could get away with and still claim to call it "reform."

The citizenry are not its beneficiaries, We are its victims.

They tricked us!!!!!!!!

Big money interests control our government and they make the big decisions.

Sorry you are just learning this.

but it will make many matters worse- both by empowering health insurers and padding their pockets, but also by moving more and more Americans into high deductible, high copay junk insurance that they won't be able to afford to use- and which won't put a dent in the astonishingly high medical bankruptcy rate.

Worse still, these failures will put a pall and any future efforts to address the root causes (if there are any- because as it stands, they may well lose their majorities- just as Dr. Dean warned they might last fall).

Then again, having watched this fiasco play out, it might also be that bona fide health is something that only Republicans can do, with unrelenting economics forcing their hands.

The most signficant thing it may accomplish is that it will accelerate the rate of growth of the cost of health care so fast that it will force the congress to make real health CARE reform. This will only be possible through some form of single payer/nationalize health care. My biggest worry is that it will be the GOP that will be in a position to bring it to us. God knows what we'll get out of that.

And the Enzi Bill from 2005 would give you some idea of what Republican cost reduction plans might entail.

Got a few Democratic votes, we might recall. From the usual suspects.

The core reason I'm having trouble supporting this bill is because I suspect it will do 2 things.

1) Piss off the electorate. Between the mandatory requirement, and the cadillac tax, it could really sour folks to any more attempts at "perfecting" health care reform. Plus, it could ultimately lead to a loss of control of the congress.

2) It will accelerate the increase of health care costs to the point where about the time that health care costs are bankrupting everyone, the GOP will have gained control of Congress. Then what we'll get is some sort of bifurcated health plan. You know one for the wealthy and another for the rest of us.

The end result will be no spare income to allow people to replace appliances and other items, let alone increase spending to create more jobs. In its current form, the best thing that could happen would be if the bill died or was killed.

I've been trying to get this point through the thick skulls of of supporters for months, to no avail. The subsidies are phased out from 200% to 400% FPL and completely eliminated above that.

some balls on the issue. I'd roll back all premium hikes that have been taking place over the last year or so in a reaction to coming HCR. I'd also cap future premium hikes. You should not be able to gouge people for health services. Period.

The industry needs strong regulation for abuse and exploitation.

.

The citizenry of this country are already resentful of too much government interference in life.

On the one end of the political spectrum (the end I am on), you got people who still see the Patriot Act and other rights dwindling right out from under our feet. I would say I am still beyond pissed off about the Patriot Act and denial of rights for GLBT citizens of the very country where I was born.

On top of that, being forced to buy a product, operated by people who gleefully proclaim their pride in splitting hairs to avoid covering costs for much needed medical procedures to their customers so they can pay some freaking inadequate, ineffectual CEO way too much money, is just going to piss me, and many others who feel the same way, even more the fuck off.

On the other end of the political spectrum, you got people who feel like they are taxed too much and they already resent being forced to pay shit. Although I disagree with them and think they should pay their fair share to cover maintenance on the infrastructure of this country, it is a fact that the resentment is there. This is just going to add to it.

Add these mandated product purchases to the mix and pretty much everybody is just going to be even more resentful and miserable than we already are. And I still wonder where they think we are going to get the money to pay for this shit out of our own pockets.

It's ridiculous. If we could have afforded it already, we would have it already. They are totally ignoring the jobless situation out here in the country. Not only that, but this short sighted blood sucking exercise is going to totally fuck the Democratic Party's chances for winning elections for years to come.

That just makes it even worse. It dooms us to more Republicans in charge for much of the foreseeable future. Shit, we aren't going to live forever. It would be nice to have another Democrat in office in our lifetimes.

And I cannot honestly say which Republicans I despise more; the perpetually angry homophobic, sexist, racist, cold hearted war mongers or Mrs. Perky'n'Dumber'nshit from Alaska.

If I hear "you betcha" come tumbling out of that shrill high pitched larynyx of hers one more time, I'm going to pull my hair out and run into the streets screaming at the top of my lungs.

I'm going to scream and run and flail my arms like a madwoman until the wagon comes along, with the men in the white lab coats, who will place me in a jacket with sleeves that button in the back, and shoot me full of good drugs to make it all better for a while, before they throw me in a padded room and leave me in a heap of drooling, mumbling madness on the floor, possibly for the rest of my life.

I am not looking forward to a mandate to purchase a product with no guarantee of service in return for the money spent on said product. Sure, I'll always vote straight ticket Democratic Party, but I'm not the only one worried about where I'll get the money to pay for this stupid exercise in outrageous overt corporate vampirism.

The short answer: We are totally fucked and I'm sick of hearing Palin run her high pitched idiotic mouth.

And don't even get me started on Dick Cheney's smirking, sneering mouth. I'll still be going to therapy sessions when I get to hell and he'll be the damn administrator when I get there. I'm not looking forward to that either, but I don't guess I have much choice either way.

:thumbsup:

The House version of the PO adds nearly nothing to the system. In fact, it would probably work to demean the value of the House Exchange provision since it could, at least theoretically, inflate average premiums within the exchange. The version that was briefly discussed in the Senate Finance Committee (the Rockefeller amendment) was better but never had the votes.

The rest of the insurance reforms and subsidies will allow non-profits to compete. This, in terms of approaching universal coverage and cost reductions, has worked in several states already.

I think yes it will be effective.

It's not reform at all, let alone effective.

The criminal insurance industry IS the problem. It cannot be the solution.

Such a bill is exactly what I'd expect from Republicans.

but the current reform package, even without the public option, will be good for a great many.

You could force people to buy insurance, prevent insurers from refusing coverage, and tax all dividends from health insurers at 99%.

and that is certainly not a good sign.

There is going to be a lot of blowback out of this!

But if they pass such a bill, at least I'll have a reason to stay home on Election Day.