Thoughts on the health reform bill(s)

PEORIA -- The health care reform package passed the US House, and likely will pass the US Senate as well.  Now what?

Cutting through the lies and smears, here's what happened:  the Obama administration opted to push the least progressive of health reform options, the insurance company fix.

It could have expanded Medicare and Medicaid, public systems already in place and accepted, and also enacted regulations on insurance coverage.  It could have allowed anyone to voluntarily buy into Medicare and Medicaid, putting pressure on the insurance industry to reduce costs.  It did not. 

So the Republicans have a point:  people will eventually be compelled by law to buy private insurance, with the costs subsidized by federal funds, for the poor.  That is, tax funds will go to the insurance companies instead of directly to health care providers. 

Is this even Constitutional?  I doubt it. The conservative Supreme Court may overturn it. It's unprecedented. Sure states require drivers to carry insurance, to protect fellow drivers, but there's no law that says you must drive a car. And tax funds don't subsidize the costs.

And then there's the abortion issue.  Some critics have called this the male health reform package because it ditches a huge part of reproductive rights for women.  Without insurance coverage of abortion, providers likely may be forced out of business, making safe, legal abortion impossible to obtain.  

It also protects the right of 'conscience' of health care providers -- a vague situation that might mean your provider won't even provide birth control, or who knows what else.  That could be problematic if you live in a town dominated by religious fanatics, anti-choice Catholics, whatever, and can't find another provider. 

Why should a provider's religion be allowed to dictate how the work is performed?

There are many good things in the reform package, but the huge weaknesses are very troublesome. Congress can and should fix these while leaving the good in place. We'll see.

 -- Elaine Hopkins

 

Comments

[Eugene Costa]

Indeed, this bill is regressive and in many ways the worst of all possible worlds. Private, for profit "Health Insurance" is the heart of the problem, the reason, as Kucinich puts it, that the US has "Health Insurance" that is not Health Insurance. That does not mean that all private, for profit insurance is exploitive, but there is no analogy at all between for profit Health Insurance and automobile insurance, for example. This is obvious when analyzed in depth. One urges everyone to go to Kucinich's site and read what he has to say on the subject.

[Eugene Costa]

"NEW YORK – Health stocks lifted the market Monday following House approval of the bill that would extend insurance to millions. The Dow Jones industrial average rose about 45 points in afternoon trading. Broader indexes also climbed...."

[AP]

As Kucinich has said, the private for profit Health Insurers are the only ones benefiting form this botch.

And apparently the Democrats think they can market this as "Progressive" because the Republicans opposed it?

As I said last year, the whole event was scripted by the private insurers who bought off both sides exactly to produce this piece of theater. The Democrat Party is, with a few exceptions, by and large utterly disgusting. But they are also utterly stupid, though not as stupid as the docile American population that is literally drowning in this crap and just keeps asking for more. P.T. Barnum is truly the real archetype of the American "hero."

[Mike Miller]

"Without insurance coverage of abortion, providers likely may be forced out of business, making safe, legal abortion impossible to obtain."

Meaning many children will get to live, just like you have been allowed to.

"It also protects the right of 'conscience' of health care providers -- a vague situation that might mean your provider won't even provide birth control, or who knows what else. That could be problematic if you live in a town dominated by religious fanatics, anti-choice Catholics, whatever, and can't find another provider."

Why put “conscience” in quotes? And why are people who are pro-life “religious fanatics”?