Reasons for or against Health Care Reform

[erosewater]

Opposed

This bill does the easy things now (expand Medicaid, subsidies, crack down on insurers) while promising to do unspecified hard things (real cost control) in the future.

Originally Posted by whisper

Opposed:

The bill addresses health insurance changes. Its questionable that the health insurance market is broken and needs substantial change which can only be achieved on the Federal level.

The bill ignores health care changes. Changing who or how things get paid doesn't alter the cost component - which is the problem.

The bill fails to address the fundamental problems with the health CARE system -

- a disconnect between the payor and patient
- lack of information regarding value
- too many restrictions on who can provide care (i.e., there are a lot of things that nurses could handle if the AMA'd let them.)
- misalignment of incentives - goes for doctors and insurers
- encouragement of defensive (litigation conscious) medicine

that being said...there likely isn't much that federal legislation could do on those anyway.

[Standtall]

The government is taking over even more control of our lives.

The pro-side is selling a disingenuous way, 10 years of tax collection for phased in benefits.

The bill doesn't properly address things like anti-selection.

The way the law was passed sucked, too many side deals and wink wink nudge nudge types.

Cutting pay to providers to cut costs? If this is possible, why wasn't this done before?

The bill does not address real cost cutting measures. Tort reform for example.

[gomer_tree]

[erosewater]

The bill counts $70B of new LTC premiums as revenue that reduces the deficit, rather than setting that 70B aside as reserves for the future LTC claims. In other words, it creates yet another unfunded entitlement program.

ETA: any LTC actuaries reading political that can comment on this new program?

[erosewater]

The bill also counts as a funding source additional SS taxes received from people whose employers pass on the savings from cheaper insurance. But those SS taxes mean future SS benefits, so cannot be used to pay for health reform. So this bill weakens the already unfunded SS program.

[Nobody22]

Opposed:
Unconstitutional (mandate)

Central planning doesn't work (Fraud and corruption will run rampant)

Not enough doctors

Public funding of abortion (Health care dollars are fungible)

No higher authority to appeal decisions

[whisper]

Originally Posted by Nobody22

Public funding of abortion (Health care dollars are fungible)

Weak argument. Money is fungible. You could make the similar argument that tax cuts fund abortions as well.

[Standtall]

Originally Posted by whisper

Weak argument. Money is fungible. You could make the similar argument that tax cuts fund abortions as well.

I might be the only one that opposes this bill, but support public funding of abortions.

If someone wants to get an abortion, and the cost of getting it stops them, how does that benefit society?

They will now have a baby they can't afford (and probably didn't want) that society will porbably have to pay a bunch to care for?

The law sucks, and removing funded abortions makes it suck more.

[whisper]

Originally Posted by Standtall

The law sucks, and removing funded abortions makes it suck more.

Ironically, by making abortions subject to free market forces - it'll probably result in them being cheap procedures...