What kind of health care bill would be acceptable to you?

[mvd]

By acceptable, I mean a bill you could vote for if you were in the House or Senate - not necessarily your ideal bill. For me, it would be a bill with a strong public option (tied to Medicare rates and available to all). I don't like mandates, but I could vote for the bill if it has a strong public option. I would vote against a bill with a weak public option, though I'd have some hope the bill could be strengthened later if one was at least in.

I didn't do a poll form for this question because it's too complex for that. So, what kind of bill would be acceptable to you?

[Oregone]

1. Pretty much any improvements without mandates are better than the status quo

But if you tie in mandates, it MUST have a public insurance policy available to all and subsidized (by employer or public) for all easily. The government has no business mandating insurance unless they can ensure, beyond a doubt, that responsible, efficient, comprehensible (read: public) insurance will be available and affordable for all. More than allowing everyone some tough loopholes they must navigate to get into a public option, there must be a mechanism to have their employers pay the premiums (or at least what they were currently paying) for those who do not qualify for 100% need base subsidization.

[mvd]

2. I agree

There's no right or wrong on this question, though - it's like taking the pulse of DU. :hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. HR3200 is acceptable.

[truedelphi]

10. + 1. n/t

[damntexdem]

4. There are several requirements:

1) A public option robust enough to apply competitive pressures on health coverage costs and to provide an acceptable form of coverage for those who cannot get coverage any other way, but preferably available to all.
2) Outlawing of such unacceptable insurer practices as pre-existing-conditions exclusions, recissions when enrollees become too expensive, and so on.
3) An adequate subsidy for those who cannot afford to purchase coverage.
4) Portability nationally and across employers.
5) No subnational geographic restrictions or coverage area.
6) Adequate benefit structure and a required process to judge the need to add or subtract benefits.
7) A coverage mandate -- no free riders.
8) Ability to negotiate lower prices from vendors in all areas of health, including pharmaceuticals.

[mvd]

7. Something I'd add is requirement to cover more areas of potential coverage

Including dental, which strongly needs it.

[dtotire]

5. A strong public option

Also, a standard benefit package similar to that in the Federal Employees Benefit Plan providing all preventive care(immunizations, colonoscopy,mammograms,etc.)
Max co-payments of $20
Maximum out-of pocket expenses no greater than $7,000 per calendar year

[uponit7771]

6. Out law precondition discrimination and rescission and a cost reducer such as

...regulation of private and public NFP executive pay and profits, Federal regulation of Private NFPs, public option, NATIONWIDE Co-Op NFP that is a GSE and capped.

I'll take that for starters

[dflprincess]

8. It would use Medicare as the opt in plan for a true public option

and it would clearly lay out the ground work for moving us to a single payer system. Any bill that would only provide "coverage" with no guarantee of actual access to health care would be unacceptable as would anything that's main point appeared to be to protect insurance company profits. Point of service fees would be minimal ($10/$15) and the thousands of dollars in deductibles that HR3200 allows would not be included.

[mvd]

9. I agree that..

we need health "care" reform, not just "insurance" reform.

[Hutzpa]

11. A bill that covers everyone

in the sense that people can walk into the hospital and get treated
without having to produce insurance ID, just as in Canada and Holland
but unique to the American people.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. At a minimum, anything

that puts strict limits on premiums, deductibles, and co-pays and requires at least 80/20 coverage of most medical expenses would be acceptable to me. I want government to start REALLY breathing down the insurance companies' necks. It would also be cool if insurance companies were required to share (or to borrow a more radical phrase "spread the wealth") its profits among its customers (i.e. dividend checks) when they are prospering. That last part seems more like science fiction rather than something that would ever probably happen in real life but hey, a guy can dream, right?