Post evidence, please, that the bill will harm more individuals than it will help

[Politicub]

Remember - Fox News makes its arguments based on opinion that they elevate to the status of a fact, but that doesn't make it so. So for example, even though I typically agree with Howard Dean in principle, his opinion doesn't rise to the level of a fact.

I want to see debate of the senate bill on the merits of expanding the number of insured or medicaid-covered individuals, not how it will harm abstract groups of people.

It seems that most of the opponents of the bill passing are using opinion to make their argument that this bill will cause more people to not be covered than getting coverage of some type.

I submit:

• The Medicaid ceiling will be lifted - ergo more people will be covered
  
• Pre-existing condition clauses will be abolished -- again, more people will be covered or have the ability to purchase insurance policies
  
• Subsidies will be available for others based on income level - once more, expanding the ranks of people who can get coverage and not worry about going to the emergency room and then needing to declare bankruptcy.
  
• Those who are insured will not lose their coverage - so the net number of people with some type of coverage expands
  

And about mandates, the moral calculus of denying those who will be added to the ranks of people who are covered based on elements of the bill that are imperfect (there are many imperfections and things not to like) does not stand up to scrutiny when it is contrasted against the expansion of the number of people who will be covered in some way.

[Mass]

1. State protection laws will be ignored because of across state lines insurance sales.

(even with the new federal guidelines, what are the chances that minimal requirements in TX become the same than in MA).
-SCHIP change will change copays to a low 1-2 % to as high as 25 %. Dont listen to me. Listen to Senator Casey (somebody who is not exactly a crazy liberal).

- Some states will be able to refuse to sell abortion coverage, and all have not to do that on a separate insurance that has to be bought when needed.

[Politicub]

3. So will the ranks of those who are covered shrink?

Is that what you're saying? Because the thrust of my argument is that the net number of covered individuals and families grows. Don't change the goal posts.

I think the abortion restrictions are odious, by the way. But taking everything in the bill on balance still keeps me on the side of it passing. I can't in good conscience support killing the bill that will deny millions of individuals some type of coverage based on its warts.

And, I'm with you on the across state line sales maybe will cause problems since the insurers will move to South Dakota or wherever has the most lax laws. But also keep in mind that the federal government will continue to regulate insurance and it won't only be the states that set the rules.

[Mass]

7. In fact, states will have no incentives to regulate anyway, given that

any insurance that will follow federal guidelines will be able to sell in a state even if the states guidelines are better. What would be the point of having better guidelines in the state?

The net number of covered individuals is an important element, but not the only one. Affordability is also an element, as is adequate coverage. In MA, the latest statistics show that, even though more than 90 % of the people are insured, some 20 + % of people could not afford some necessary care last year. What is the point of being insured if you cannot afford the care.

There is a huge tension between universal coverage and affordability. The bill takes care of universal coverage, but not necessarily of affordability. The goal should be for people to have access to care.

[iamjoy]

2. I'm Curious to See The Responses

is opposition to this bill letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? Or is there not enough good in this bill?

[cali]

4. Fact: Insurance Companies still have an exception from anti-trust laws

Fact: our recent history of regulating financial institutions and insurance companies, is abysmal.

[doc03]

5. You posted the evidence yourself. You mandate the Medicaid

ceiling be lifted, pre-existing clauses be abolished, add subsidies based on income level and the insured will not lose their coverage.

1. Plain and simple it will cost everyone that buys insurance. If you pay for insurance yourself your rates will go up to pay for the mandated coverage.
2. If your employer pays for your insurance he will have to either cut jobs or you will have to forgo wage increases to pay for it.
3. If you are on Medicare they are cutting $500 billion or so out of that.
4. Then in addition to those everyone that pays taxes will pay more.
5. The only people it will benefit are some people who don't currently have insurance from their employer or those who don't work.

[cornermouse]

6. Cutting medicare at a time when more people will be going on it

Makes sense to me. :sarcasm:

I guess that passes for logic?

[elleng]

8. What they're cutting in medicare

is the 'Advantage' program, which enables those who want it to obtain 'extras.' Its not the run of the mill medicare coverage.

[cornermouse]

9. And you know this how?

Because they told you? Did they tell you that medicare had cuts go into effect once earlier this year? Medicare Advantage does not pay for "extras" any more than Medicare itself does. You're cheering and you have no idea what you're cheering for.

[elleng]

11. Who the H are YOU? to say I'm cheering?

My 96 year old father is on medicare, my mother passed on last year, and I'll probably be on it in 2 months. I'm listening carefully whenever I hear what sounds like an intelligent analysis, and not to a lot of b.s. gripes. There was one-such on c-span a few days ago.

[Politicub]

12. That's where I am, too. I'm paying more attention to reasonable analysis and argument

and the text of the actual bill :).

It's gotten so tiring putting the elements of the actual bill against someone's opinion. And right now, I'm on the side of passing the bill based on reading analysis and portions of the actual bill.

[elleng]

14. Senators speaking now.

http://www.c-span.org/Listen/C-SPAN-Radio_wm.aspx

Thanks

[cornermouse]

13. Putting you back where you came from.

You'll find out soon enough.

[Armstead]

10. Yes disagrement equals Fox News....How about your own distortions?

First, very few people -- if any -- claim that more people would lose coverage. That is a strawman. The issue is what will it do to people in a larger sense, what kind of coverage, the cost, etc.

Apart from that:

More people could be covered by passing a basic expansion of Medicaid without the rest of it. Likewise pre-existing conditions, subsidies etc. WITHOUT MANDATES.

It is true that if the goal is to protect the profitability of insurance companies that mandates are helpful to them. However, there are also alternatives to handle that. The most obvious would be to open up Medicare to those people rejected by insurance companies on that basis. But there could also be subsidies to insurers earmarked for that, etc.

The point is that it is not necessary to do bad things to get good things.