Senate Health bill

Cynic said:
So much for not wanting the government interfering with the doctor-patient relationship.
Click to expand...

In what way is the government interfering in the doctor-patient relationship? I've read large sections of this bill and I haven't seen anything like that. Could you point me to the sections?
 
jdp said:
In what way is the government interfering in the doctor-patient relationship? I've read large sections of this bill and I haven't seen anything like that. Could you point me to the sections?
Click to expand...

The provision is that people on government assistance will pay for their abortions separately. As people who are on government assistance are unlikely to be able to pay for that, if a doctor recommends one for any reason, patients in this situation will be reluctant to comply.
 
Cynic said:
The provision is that people on government assistance will pay for their abortions separately. As people who are on government assistance are unlikely to be able to pay for that, if a doctor recommends one for any reason, patients in this situation will be reluctant to comply.
Click to expand...

Two questions:

1. Do current government sponsored plans, especially those on government assistance (such as Medicaid), pay for abortions? I was under the impression that they didn't, unless the health of the mother was at stake, or for rape, ect.

2. Are you sure it's for any reason? Typically they do make exceptions for health of the mother, rape, and some other situations.

Could you please site the section and paragraph where this language is?
 
Last edited:
Cynic said:
The provision is that people on government assistance will pay for their abortions separately.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's quite right, but it may be effectively what happens. It says that if you receive government assistance, you have to pay the premium for abortion coverage out of your own pocket rather than with the government subsidy.

For people who are already paying a portion of their premium, it shouldn't matter. For people who really can't afford any premium, it will effectively mean their insurance won't cover abortions.
 
jdp said:
Two questions:

1. Do current government sponsored plans, especially those on government assistance (such as Medicaid), pay for abortions? I was under the impression that they didn't, unless the health of the mother was at stake, or for rape, ect.

2. Are you sure it's for any reason? Typically they do make exceptions for health of the mother, rape, and some other situations.

Could you please site the section and paragraph where this language is?
Click to expand...

I think you're right. In that news story I cited above Nelson said this only makes the bill conform to the Hyde Amendment which prohibits federal funds to pay for abortions.

From only a brief bit of googling, I think the original Hyde Amendment only made an exception for cases when the mother's life would be endangered, but in 1978 the exception for cases of rape and incest were added. In 1980 the Supreme Court upheld the original formulation (and that held sway from '81-'93), but in '94 the rape and incest exception was added back in.
 
parky76 said:
well, now we have a FINAL Senate health bill, so I figured it deserved a fresh new thread.
Click to expand...

It's not final yet (the vote is likely just after midnight tonight after the last batch of amendments are read aloud and voted on)--and it's the same thing we're talking about in the other thread.

In fact, a couple days ago I asked the specific question you asked here--is it better than nothing?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
It's not final yet (the vote is likely just after midnight tonight after the last batch of amendments are read aloud and voted on)--and it's the same thing we're talking about in the other thread.

In fact, a couple days ago I asked the specific question you asked here--is it better than nothing?
Click to expand...

my main request, was a non-profit option to compete with the for-profit HMOs. and that does exist in this plan.

so yes, I think this is much better then doing nothing.

the two main objections of the Republicans, being a public-option and greatly expanding Medicare, are out of this bill. so they have no reason to vote against it, other then out of spite.
 
From the other thread (though I expect they'll soon be merged):

parky76 said:
my main request, was a non-profit option to compete with the for-profit HMOs. and that does exist in this plan.

so yes, I think this is much better then [sic] doing nothing.
Click to expand...
I agree, though maybe for different reasons. I think banning the practice of rescission alone makes the bill worthwhile. (I've also got my own personal bias that I'm one of the people that has extremely limited access to healthcare, and this bill will be a big change in my own life.)

I think the biggest drawback is that it will make any meaningful reform impossible for the foreseeable future.

the two main objections of the Republicans, being a public-option and greatly expanding Medicare, are out of this bill. so they have no reason to vote against it, other then out of spite.
Click to expand...
I think all but Sen. Snowe are committed to voting "no" regardless of what's in the bill at this point. I also think when the Dems lose their supermajority (as they most certainly will) next year, Republicans will do all they can to nibble about the edges of this bill to make it unsuccessful (even by its own narrow terms) to justify their opposition to it.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
The new CBO estimate puts the net effect of the bill at a $132 billion reduction of the deficit over the first 10 years:

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-Reid_Letter_Managers.pdf
Click to expand...

Does anyone really trust the CBO numbers? They are usually wrong and they are specifically told how to add up the numbers by whoever wrote the bill (meaning they have to count the predictions in the bill as if they are set in stone). Also they have to guess, round off and "estimate" how many people will do this or that regarding the bill (ie opt out and pay fines etc.) and how much aspects of it will cost now and in the future. It's a rough estimate at best and a total shot in the dark at worst especially in a health care related bill where numbers are not very solid like an estimate on building infrastructure (and even in those cases the numbers can be wrong). Also in ten years a lot of things could happen. Basically what I'm saying is that the CBO numbers don't matter in many cases and especially in health care bills.

BTW in answer to a previous question I do think in many cases it's worse to create a bad bill on an important issue rather than do nothing. This bill is truly a waste of time. I am opposed to lots of new taxes but I think it is inevitable that we will need a small VAT tax (maybe a 3% cap that can never be increased) in the future to pay for health care and other things like deficit reduction. Get the money first (or at least a plan to get the money) and then make a bill around that money. We should be getting UHC but this bill is a total **** up and not even close to ideal.
 
parky76 said:
but this is damn better then doing nothing
Click to expand...

I think that is the "big lie" going on here. This bill, is probably, worse than doing nothing. It reforms little, does little, and seems like the insurance companies wrote it.

Look at this way:
1. insurance companies still won't have interstate competition (also known as the DUH reform that has been buried by both chambers)
2. insurance companies won't have to compete with a government option
3. insurance companies will have a flood of new people coerced into buying insurance by the government

This bill is worse than nothing at all. Its corporatism in disguise.
 
corplinx said:
Look at this way:
2. insurance companies won't have to compete with a government option
3. insurance companies will have a flood of new people coerced into buying insurance by the government

This bill is worse than nothing at all. Its corporatism in disguise.
Click to expand...

but they WILL have to compete with a nation-wide non-profit plan.

getting a non-profit plan into the mix, nation-wide, is the real key here. i don't care if its government or privately run.
 
Policenaut said:
Does anyone really trust the CBO numbers?
Click to expand...
Compared to what? So far, I'd trust the CBO's estimates over any others I've seen (Cato Institute, for example).

They are usually wrong and they are specifically told how to add up the numbers by whoever wrote the bill (meaning they have to count the predictions in the bill as if they are set in stone).
Click to expand...
Are they usually wrong more than any other estimate that depends on future events?

Also, I don't think it's correct to say that they are told by the bill's sponsors how to calculate their estimates. I think they are told which estimates to make.

Also they have to guess, round off and "estimate" how many people will do this or that regarding the bill (ie opt out and pay fines etc.) and how much aspects of it will cost now and in the future.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's an estimate. Is there any better way to estimate the effect of a large bill like this on the federal budget? I think most of us here accept that psychics are much worse at this sort of thing.

It's a rough estimate at best and a total shot in the dark at worst especially in a health care related bill where numbers are not very solid like an estimate on building infrastructure (and even in those cases the numbers can be wrong). Also in ten years a lot of things could happen. Basically what I'm saying is that the CBO numbers don't matter in many cases and especially in health care bills.
Click to expand...
Funny, critics of healthcare reform were clamoring for CBO estimates earlier.

Get the money first (or at least a plan to get the money) and then make a bill around that money. We should be getting UHC but this bill is a total **** up and not even close to ideal.
Click to expand...
I agree that a true UHC system would be far better, aside from the fact that it would never pass through even this, the Congress most friendly to healthcare reform we're likely to see for a loooong time.

So, back in the real world. . . This bill sort of does what you're saying. It phases in many of the expenditure parts of the bill after a couple of years. (Critics of the CBO claim that it's a gimmick to count all ten years in a 10 year estimate since most of the deficit reduction happens in the first 5 years. I pointed out that even so, it still reduces the deficit just counting the second 5 years of that period, and beyond that, these numbers are even less certain than they already are--like doing a weather forecast for the day's weather 6 months from now.)
 
corplinx said:
I think that is the "big lie" going on here. This bill, is probably, worse than doing nothing. It reforms little, does little, and seems like the insurance companies wrote it.
Click to expand...

I agree that caving in to the insurance companies' demands was horribly wrong, however I disagree that this bill is worse than nothing.

As I've been saying, just putting an end to the practice of rescission makes it worth it, IMO.

Making access to healthcare available to a substantial number of people who have had little to no access is another big improvement that is not likely to be passed by any other Congress we're likely to see for quite some time.
 
i think Republican's biggest fear is that the legislation will get health-insurance to most Americans, and by 2012 Obama will have shown to have done something very good for America.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
So, back in the real world. . . This bill sort of does what you're saying. It phases in many of the expenditure parts of the bill after a couple of years. (Critics of the CBO claim that it's a gimmick to count all ten years in a 10 year estimate since most of the deficit reduction happens in the first 5 years. I pointed out that even so, it still reduces the deficit just counting the second 5 years of that period, and beyond that, these numbers are even less certain than they already are--like doing a weather forecast for the day's weather 6 months from now.)
Click to expand...

The problem with them doing that (collecting taxes for 4 years before anything goes into effect) is that it only helps the bill in being neutral or saving money for that period of time. Past the next decade the price will continue to increase and they can't be stopping service every 4 out of 10 years just to keep it deficit neutral. As I said before I think they need a new permanent tax across the board (capped low, not counting food/non-alcoholic drinks, and a provision that it can never be increased) to pay for this bill (well not this bill, a better bill) at least and possibly other bills if it can generate enough money.

I take your point about the CBO but my main argument is that their numbers should not be taken as gospel no matter if you are for or against any bill in question but especially health related bills such as this one.

I see no reason why we can't have a nonpartisan panel (that includes plenty of people in the health care industry from the US and other countries) to pick and choose the best of all other UHC programs around the world and shape a US UHC system, come up with a way to implement it, estimate how much it will cost, the best way to pay for it (new taxes, a VAT, etc), and how long it will take to put in place instead of relying on politicians which as this bill has shown can and will screw up just about every aspect of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom