I wanted to start a comprehensive thread on the health care debate - one that wasn't filled with hyped up opinions and personal put-downs, but this thread seems as good as any to get things started on the right track. So, here we go...
As I mentioned in the "
26 Lies..." thread, there are (at least) 12 forms of health care reform legistlation/proposals currently being pushed by our nation's government:
- H.R. 3200 - the leading health care reform bill proposed by Democrats
- Senate Finance Committee "Policy Options" (the leading health care proposal by Republicans)
- Senate HELP Committee "Affordable Health Choices Act"
- A joint-bill submitted by Senators Coburn, Burr, Ryan and Nunes; "Patients' Choice Act of 2009" (S. 1099 and H. R. 2520)
- Congressional Rep. J. Conyer's "U.S. National Health Care Act" (H.R. 676)
- Congressional Rep. J. Dingell's "National Health Insurance Act" (H.R. 15)
- And the President's "Principles for Health Reform"
- Empowering Patient's First Act (H.R. 3400)
- The American Health Security Act of 2009 (S. 703)
- The American Heath Care Act of 2009 (H.R. 193)
- The healthy Americans Act (S. 391)
- A joint-proposal by former Sens. Baker, Daschle and Dole, "Crossing the Lines: ...Reform U.S. Health Care System"
*Links provided where available
The
Kaiser Family Foundation has prepared a chart which provides a side-by-side review of each HCR bill/proposal mentioned above. For what it's worth, I think when people take the time to at least review the chart, what they'll find is that of the two leading HCR proposals - H.R. 3200 and the Policy Option - both share many similarities. For example, both proposals recommend that:
- all Americans are covered by affordable health care
- est. some form of a public option (Health Insurance Exchange or state-sponsored insurance "gateway")
- employers pay an excess tax on insurance premiums
- individuals who do not obtain health insurace are penalized
- employers who do not provide health insurance to their employees are penalized
- Medicaid is expanded to cover more individuals
- small business have a means to providing affordable health care to their employees
- no one should lose their health insurance due to change of employers, divorce or death of primary insurance holder
- no one be denied health insurance due to a pre-exsisting condition
- a review/audit "commission/committee" is established to ensure insurance benefits are similar in both the public and private sectors
- a caps is set for how much individual and families pay toward health care expenses per year or per health care "incident"
- quality care and preventive medicine are promoted over "treatment"
- information technology (IT) is utilized to "share" health information and promote prompt payment systems via electronic funds transfer (EFT)
- states have the choice to establish their on state-sponsored HIE
Both sides - Dems and Reps - want the same thing. They just want to go about reaching the objective(s) differently. For example, everyone's up in arms over a "government (public) option" mainly because they don't think the government can run the business of health care any more affectively than the private sector. Moreover, they're concerned that the government will get into their personal business and start cherry-picking which health care benefits one is entitled to. But what people have come to realize is that the VA, Medicare and even the care our active duty military and their families receive under TriCare are all government sponsored health care systems that work pretty darn good. Not the greatest, but pretty good.
When the cry against socialized health care goes out, I throw up the Medicaid system which is co-finances between the states and the government.
When folks complain about rationed care in general, I'm quick to point out that your health insurance company and hospitals are already doing that. You just don't know it. That's part of being "pre-approved" for certain medical care is about only people don't normally see it as "rationed care".
What I would like from posters on this debate is less reliance on "talking points" and a halt on personal attacks and a real debate on the issue of health care reform. If you're opposed to H.R. 3200 (seeing that it's the leading piece of legistlation out there), why?
What specific issue(s) do you have against the bill? Why? And what do you propose to fix it?
(And BTW, now that you (Conservatives) have been made aware that some in your party are asking for pretty much the same things in health care reform as the Democrats, where do you now stand on the issue? Is H.R. 3200 still a piece of crap? And if so, why is it that much worse than what the SFC "Policy Option" is proposing? And mind you, according to The Kaiser Family Foundation, the price tag for the PO is estimated to be about $900 million compared to H.R. 3200 which is estimated at $1.2 trillion - just $100.2 million difference.)