NY Times Endorses the House Healthcare Bill

[berni_mccoy]

http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/07/news-of-the-day-a-strong-healt.shtml

House Democratic leaders have unveiled a bill that would go a long way toward solving the nation's health insurance problems without driving up the deficit. It is already drawing fierce opposition from business groups and many Republicans. This is a bill worth fighting for.

The bill would require virtually all Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. And it would require all but the smallest businesses to provide health insurance for their workers or pay a substantial fee. It would also expand Medicaid to cover many more poor people, and it would create new exchanges through which millions of middle-class Americans could buy health insurance with the help of government subsidies. The result would be near-universal coverage at a surprisingly manageable cost to the federal government.

....

The legislation also includes some sound ideas for slowing the inexorable rise in health care costs. Such savings are also essential for the nation’s economic health. It adjusts Medicare reimbursements to encourage health care providers to improve productivity, reduce costly hospital readmissions and spend more time on primary care that can head off the need for costly specialists. It expands prevention and wellness activities.

And it establishes a center to compare the effectiveness of various drugs, devices and procedures. Unfortunately, it prohibits the government from requiring public or private insurers to set reimbursement policies based on the findings. These steps may not produce big savings quickly but could lower costs in future years.

The bill makes a mockery of Republican claims that the Democrats are pushing a hugely costly government takeover of medicine.

[Laelth]

1. Theoretically, it wont be hugely costly for the government.

Massachusetts, of course, is still having trouble funding their system (the model upon which the House proposal is based). The reason, of course, that it will be so cheap for the government is that the cost is passed on the the uninsured, themselves (most of whom can't afford insurance). It will be, effectively, a massive new tax on the uninsured.

50 million, over half of which, let's say 30 million, will have to shell out up to $5K/year per person to buy insurance. Even if the average cost to the uninsured (given many will get government subsidies) is only $2K/year (which I think is low), that's effectively a new tax on the uninsured that ought to bring in $60 billion/year.

That's right. A new tax burden of $60 billion/year on the uninsured. Brilliant! :sarcasm:

I knew it all along. The solution to homelessness is to pass a law requiring everyone to buy a house! It's so easy.

:dem:

-Laelth