Do you think the health care bill will pass?

If you want to listen to a young(-ish) Ronald Reagan go on about how the proposed Medicare plan is socialized medicine that will lead the country down the garden path to godless communism, listen to this:

 

As in Massachusetts, this bill will provide subsidies for insurance purchases based on an income formula, so it won't cost most people $8-12 K a year. That's why it costs money.
I personally now think they should have just passed a no denial of insurance for preexisting conditions law. That would have wrecked the insurance companies in a few years, and we'd have socialized medicine by default. But pols, Democrats or Republicans (or Communists and Prohibitionists) aren't big on looking too far ahead.

 

Yes, socialized medicine would be just super.

 

E

Employers will do whatever they can to get their employees to switch over to one of new plans.

It will be much like how many companies got retirees to switch from company plan to medicare.

I don't view as a negative - just the reality of what will happen.

 

I think it will pass but through some procedure that doesn't require a vote. The Dems will win THIS battle but will get hammered, as a group, in November.

If they DO vote on it and it does pass, the Dems who didn't vote for it could be spared in close districts.

As I read through these (now 2) pages, wanting it or not comes down to two philosophies:
- Health care is just another product. You pay for it by what you "buy". If a family of four coverage runs you $400 a month, that's what you pay, regardless of your income. Not unlike a $5 sandwich. You don't walk into Subway and pay $36 for the sandwich if you make $300,000 a year but pay nothing if you make less than $15,000 a year.

- Health care is tied into what the government provides. Then it becomes like defense spending, infrastructure, etc. If you make $100,000, you probably pay about $16,500-$18,000 in federal taxes and that covers everything. If you make $15,000, you probably pay zero federal income taxes.

That's what it, basically, comes down to. I am one who sees health care as "another consumer good", albeit an important one. When I was making $28,000 a year, I paid $320 a month for health coverage for all of us. That's 14% of income. Now, it's about 5.5% of income for the same coverage.

What I have a hard time coming to grips with is this: why should a person making $120,000 a year pay, say, $10,000 a year in health coverage (in the government federal cost premium) when someone who makes $20,000 a year would pay far less ($1,000? $1,500) a year for the exact same coverage. Is that fair? (Of course, I could get into the fact that higher-income earners tend to take more care of themselves - less smokers, more exercise, better diets - and require less medical care in their 40s, 50s and 60s).

It'll pass. The Dems have the numbers.

But they WILL pay for this in November. Yet I don't believe it can also be "undone" easily.

 

ex, anything that is signed into law will require a vote. That's the whole issue in play politically right now: can Pelosi round up the votes?

And I have to respectfully disagree on what will happen in November. Dems will lose seats, but they will remain in control of both houses if they pass the bill. If it passes (and I think it will), they'll spend the next five months working on jobs bills trying to goose the economy. If it's on the upswing by October they'll be fine. If not, they'll have some trouble.

But how could any of them expect Democratic turnout if they can't pass a very moderate version of health care? I mean it's only been a big plank in the Democratic platform since Roosevelt, right? Truman at least?
They have to pass this bill. That's why they will. By voting on it.

 

Never say never. Bills can be undone. FDR had an economic recovery package designed to get us out of the depression in the early 1930s. Mostly it worked, and I forget the specifics of what happened, but some of the stuff FDR wanted to do snowballed in the mid 1930s and the economy went through a second upheaval.

No question the Dems will get their asses handed to them in November if this happens. If all branches of government go back to the GOP in 2012 (not likely, but it's a scenario) I think you see this bill completely gutted and a fairer bill (hello, tort reform!!) debated and passed.

And if you don't like the bill? Move to Idaho. Apparently that state is ready to sue the federal government if Obamacare passes. Idahostatesman.com has more details.

 

This is where the numbers don't add up. I just don't see how we can afford to add 30 million uninsured to the rolls and have it turn into a savings.

I hear that some of funding will come from taxing high cost plans but there is no guarantee that those on high cost plans would remain if current subsidy's were removed.

 

In theory, adding access keeps costs down by expanding the risk pool. In practice, the only ways to make health care cost less are to either 1. Vastly expand the number of hospitals and doctors so as to increase competition -- a daunting prospect, or 2. Set limits on costs -- an even more daunting prospect, at least politically.
My personal guess is we're headed for option 3. Within a decade, Medicare will be turned over to the "free market," meaning that if the sickest (demographically speaking) section of the populace doesn't have money, it's tough shit for them. In short, we will decide that money equals health. Since mortality rates figure to continue at one to a person, we will also accept a system where most people who live past 65 will die bankrupt, but as we are becoming a society whose motto is "Fuck you, what about me!", we'll just adjust.
Good luck fixing up the dining room into Grandma's new bedroom, people under 30!!

 

This is being pitched like the Iraq war. WMD's = Health care cost savings.

I would rather just have them say that the only reason for this plan is to provide insurance for all and that we will not realize an overall savings.

The other shoe will drop when those without insurance realize they will have to pony up $400- $500 a month for a crappy plan.

 

Of course when one of our elected leaders talks about keeping costs down he's talking about keeping costs down for he Feds, not for the little people like us.

We'll pay more. That's guaranteed.

 

What empirical evidence do you base that on?