"Health bill would leave millions uninsured"

[KansasVoter]

Even as Democrats seek the biggest expansion of health coverage in decades, as many as 23 million people could still be without insurance by 2018, illustrating the complexity of achieving the long-held Democratic goal of universal health care.

The legislation that the Senate passed Christmas Eve, which is expected to resemble closely the final bill that is hashed out between the House and Senate over the next month, would leave about 8 percent of the population under age 65 without health insurance, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It would extend insurance to 31 million of an estimated 54 million who would have no coverage without the legislation.

"The impact of the reform overall is that we can focus more on care and less on how we pay for the uninsured, but the problem is still going to be there," said Chip Kahn, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a lobbying group that has endorsed the Democratic plan.

<snip>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34664303/ns/politics-washington_post/

[HughMoran]

1. The work has just begun

Universal coverage will likely take a looong time - just look at Canada.

[levander]

15. It could be done with one bill...

that had bipartisan support and should have been the framework for this entire argument that has gotten so ridiculous it ended up with a bill who's supporters acknowledge it's not a great bill, just are willing to settle for it.

The bill the argument should have been centered around was the Healthy Americans Act. The CBO estimate said it would insure 99% of the country. Apparently there are people who will claim religious exemptions and stuff like this... Anyway, you can read about the Healthy Americans Act here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-healthy-americans-act_b_301962.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-wyden---bennett-healt_b_293117.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/a-plan-for-universal-cove_b_309513.html

[krawhitham]

24. bipartisan support?

What world do you live in? The rethugs will vote against any Health Care Bill no matter what, they feel it is their way to gain seats back

[jenmito]

25. Or you could ask...

"On what planet do you spend most of your time?" :rofl:

[OHdem10]

2. This is what Center Right Legislation does.

[grantcart]

3. It would extend insurance to 31 million

Also in the article but somehow not the headline.

So you are advocating that we not insure the 31 million until the 23 million are also insured, realizing that could be another decade.

Why not insure 31 million more now and turn around and work on the remaining 23 million immediately?

[totodeinhere]

4. Why not insure all 54 million now?

Why only insure 31 million now and make 23 million more wait? If we don't get everyone on board now the GOP might win more seats in the next election and have the power to block any future improvements. The time to get everyone covered is now while we still can.

[pnwmom]

7. We're not making any citizens wait. The reason all wouldn't be insured

is because some, especially those who are young and healthy, would decide to pay a small penalty rather than carry insurance. A third of those not covered are illegal aliens and covering them would have little public support, unfortunately.

[quiller4]

10. In part, because of the pledge not to cover the undocumented

[totodeinhere]

11. That's like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Just like the article said, the states spend millions to care for the undocumented, and a civilized society cannot let them go without medical care since regardless of their immigration status they are human beings. Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to cover them? I know it might be hard politically to accomplish that, but isn't that what leadership is for, to make the hard decisions and fight for the right thing to happen whether it's politically expedient or not?

[cutlassmama]

13. If we Americans go to a foreign country we are expected to pay the bill

why are undocumented not expected to pay the bill here?

[quakerboy]

29. We are?

They treated me in the UK without delay or charge. Perhaps it depends on which other country/severity.

I think that one could argue that the undocumented pay taxes, so should be covered.
Alternately, given the logistics of it, I think that one could argue that having them as a vulnerable population in our midst could end up costing us more to deal with things spread by them than it would just to provide preventative care to them in the first place.

[Oregone]

5. You mean it will force middle-class union workers to pay for 31 million health plans?

[SandWalker1984]

16. Mandating 31 million buy insurance is NOT the same as extending them insurance!

Why do some people not understand this?

Perhaps this from dailykos will help explain:
People from 27-55 are still out of luck in terms of high quality, affordable insurance. In the base bill, the basic, lowest level qualified program in the exchange has a very low actuarial level, 60%, which is worse than 99% of employer-based plans. What that basically means is that patients will have to pay, between premiums and out of pocket costs, 40% on average of their supposedly covered costs. Lots of people, mandated to buy insurance, are going to be choosing this lowest level program because it will be the least expensive. There will be some basic preventive care included in the package, but in the event of a serious illness or injury, the people in this plan will still face huge bills.

Get it?

People who cannot now afford to buy expensive, comprehensive coverage will still not be able to buy it under the Sendate version of the bill. The subsidies will only be enough to help them buy high deductible insurance with many loopholes that pays at best 60%.

That isn't even close to being health CARE reform -- it's merely a profits protection bill for the health insurance industry.

The fact that it was passed by a Democratic majority Senate makes me furious at them.

[dkf]

19. +100.

K&R.

[bornskeptic]

23. Actually the 60% actuarial value is only meaningful for those with incomes above 400% of FPL.

For those with lower incomes subsidies are provided when out of pocket costs reach a lower level than the original out-of-pocket max. These subsidies are computed in a manner which attempts to bring the effective actuarial value of the bronze level policies to something around 70% for those in the 200-400%FPL range, to around 80% for those in the 150-200%FPL range, and around 90% for those in the 100-150%FPL. In fact, the Secretary of HHS is instructed to ensure that those figures for the latter two groups are realized. It's all in Section 1402, but it is somewhat hard to follow. By comparison actuarial value numbers I've seen for Medicare are mostly between 70 and 75%, and for typical large group insurance between 80 and 85%, so the insurance being offered is a far better value than you have indicated in your post.

[LibDemAlways]

27. Wait until the American public learns the particulars of this bill and

discovers they've been seriously screwed. That Democratic majority is going to quickly become a Republican majority. The R's must be enjoying the hell out of this.

[rockymountaindem]

18. Can we work on insuring the others immediately?

I mean, we hear ad nauseum that unless we pass *this* bill, we're not going to have another chance for a decade. So that would indicate that those who don't get help from this bill will be up the creek until 2020. If you think we can turn around and get those people covered sooner, why not just try to get a better bill now?

[dflprincess]

26. Sure, more people may have "coverage"

but all that means is that they'll be sending money to a for profit company every month. A good many of those "insured" by this bill will be paying to join the ranks of the underinsured because having insurance doesn't mean you can afford to get care.

[CaliCompadre]

6. Obama never promised that everyone would be insured

He promised to make sure that 90-100% of the population would be insured. And that will happen.

[LibDemAlways]

28. He never promised that people would be forced to buy insurance from

the crooks who run the insurance syndicate. I suspect there will be widespread refusal to go along with this scheme to enrich the insurance companies, and come November Obama will be faced with Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Way to go Dems.

[pnwmom]

8. Most of them because they'd decide to pay a penalty rather than pay for insurance.

About a third because they are illegal aliens.

But all citizens would be eligible for coverage.

[Vinca]

9. It would be so easy to cover EVERY American . . .

in the same way Canada covers EVERY Canadian. Universal, single-payer health CARE, not some patchwork quilt of insurance for some, Medicaid for some, Medicare for some, VA for some, nothing for many. How about 1 plan for everyone paid for by taxes? Oops, I forgot. That idea is too sensible and was not allowed on the table.

[IndianaGreen]

12. but the US government supports enriching the health industry

more than providing health care for all, as one would with a single payer system.

[WeDidIt]

14. Single PAyer wouldn't get 30 votes in the Senate

So Single Payer cannot happen.

It's that simple.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Then we must get rid of the reactionaries in the Senate, not pander to them

and certainly not reward them with our votes.

[WeDidIt]

21. Then you end up with a Republican controlled congress

and make matters even worse.

[joeglow3]

22. Lessor of 2 evils

some people refuse to recognize reality.

Strive for the perfect solution, but also be cognizant of reality.

[dkf]

17. How can we count undocumented immigrants in this number when we've outlawed

them getting insurance?

I don't get the point of it.

[onpatrol98]

30. Unsure

Quite frankly, I don't know how to feel about this plan just yet. But, I am skeptical.

1) For instance, candidate Obama stated that if I liked my plan, I could keep it. But, if my employer can save money using something created by the government or by simply paying a penalty, I'm not going to be able to keep my plan. And, it looks like the penalty is going to be much less than maintaining our current plans.

2) Without a public option, I see very little that brings the cost down. The one thing that does bring the cost down is that private insurers insisted on being able to acquire "young healthy insurers". (ie, people who would faithfully pay, and would not receive services.) Generics are being strangled. I'm primarily a generics user. And, this administration, immediately made a deal with pharmaceutical companies to stifle competition. Not to mention, in addition to paying for our own insurance, as taxpayers we're paying for subsidies. This is in the hope of reducing the number of people who go to the emergency rooms for care.

3) No part of me believes this will truly be high quality care.

4) I do like the part about covering regardless of pre-existing conditions. But, that could have been done in a month...not a year. In fact, they could do this next week, without this bill.

Finally, be it a republican or democratic bill, I have never seen one come in for the costs they actually said it would. Often their numbers are off and tremendously so because...well, heck, I don't know why they're numbers are generally so wrong.

I would have preferred 100 small bills that provided what we actually wanted, than 1 big one with gifts for certain states and hidden gotchas that I believe will bite us in the butt later.

And, no one will ever convince me that the federal government should be forcing Americans to buy anything from a private company. Car insurance is not the same thing. You can choose not to have a car, try choosing not to have a body.

I'm disappointed. Not disappointed enough to vote for a republican...but disappointed enough that I'm not going to be a cheerleader for everything this President does "just" because he has a D next to his name. I didn't respect republicans who did it blindly for Bush. No need for me to follow suit. This is not what I expected.