I’m having an exchange with a left-wing opponent of the Health Care Reform bill (aka Obamacare) here on BlueOregon. But for some reason, BlueOregon won’t let me post. So I’m posting my response here instead.
Barry Deutsch apparently is another of those low-information supporters so common in the NW who repeat superficial talking points about the bill that depend on glossing over the facts.
I wish you wouldn’t get insulting; I don’t think it adds anything to the discussion. When your arguments are solid, there’s no need for personal attacks.
Obama today said this bill is not about health care reform, it’s about protecting the insurance companies from disruption.
I frankly doubt this is true. Do you have a link to Obama saying this?
And we know that’s true because the CBO said this bill will leave over 23 million non-elderly uninsured.
It’s true, this bill “only” insures 32 million. The remaining 23 million are people who will choose to pay the mandate penalty rather than buy insurance. But at least if these uninsured have a critical need for insurance, they’ll then be able to buy into the system — under the status quo, people who can be insured but choose not to, are turned down by the private insurance companies if they find themselves urgently needing medical care.
The only thing that would cover 100% of Americans is single-payer. But single-payer is not going to happen in the US in a single step, anytime in the next two or three decades, and maybe not ever.
If you’re saying that no health care reform that fails to cover 100% of the uninsured is ever acceptable, then you’re saying we can never have health care reform, ever. You’re saying that the 32 million this bill would cover should remain uncovered, forever.
Those who end up with private insurance — the specific benefits are not specified in the bill, by the way
“Specific” benefits? No. But the general scope of insurance under the health exchanges is defined in the bill; all such private insurance must include, at a minimum:
(A) Ambulatory patient services.
(B) Emergency services.
(C) Hospitalization.
(D) Maternity and newborn care.
(E) Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
(F) Prescription drugs.
(G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
(H) Laboratory services.
(I) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management.
(J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
That’s a direct quote from the Senate bill; you can find it here (pdf file), on page 105.
Note that under the law, all members of Congress and their staffs would have to buy their insurance from the same health exchanges. Do you really think that Congress would pass a law requiring Congress and their staffs to buy lousy insurance?
Under this bill, 32 million currently uninsured people, would be able to buy insurance the same way Harry Reid does. That’s not a bad thing.
As many don’t accept Medicare and various private insurance plans right now.
The large majority of doctors do accept Medicare, actually. And HCR increases Medicaid reimbursement rates, so presumably that will increase the percentage of doctors who take new Medicaid patients.
That said, let’s say that only about 55% of doctors will take new Medicaid patients, and 75% new Medicare patients. If I’m someone who’s broke and can’t afford to see a doctor, I’m far better off if this bill passes and I can get on Medicaid — which means that about half of all doctors will see me — than I am if this bill fails, and I remain too broke to see a doctor at all.
Are you saying that the only acceptable law is one that will force doctors to accept all patients and all insurance plans, against their will? Do you have any realistic plan for passing such a law over the opposition of the AMA? (The AMA is a far more powerful lobby than the private insurance lobby).
Health Care Reform is a good bill, but it’s not a bill that solves every imaginable problem with the health care system under the sun. You can go on forever saying that this bill doesn’t make everything perfect. But we’re still better off passing this bill and then trying to get more in the future, than we are if this bill fails and we’re starting out again with nothing.
Medicare didn’t make everything perfect, either. But it was a vast improvement over the status quo before Medicare, and for that reason it’s good that Medicare passed. The same is true of Health Care Reform.
And for the next four years waiting is exactly what we will boing and people will continue to be die because they are uninsured. [….] We could instead be putting pressure on Congress….
Four years is better than 15 years, which is about how long it has taken, historically, for Congress to try again after each health care failure.
The Democrats have an unsustainable majority in Congress; it’s guaranteed that they will be losing seats this November. If this is the best health care reform the Democrats can do when they have large majorities, what makes you think they’ll be able to pass a much better, more comprehensive overhaul with a smaller majority?
Or do you think the Republicans are going to pass something better when they’re in the majority?
There will be no next chance anytime in the next four years. “Pure” lefties like you have been “pressuring congress” for my entire life; have you delivered universal care yet?
The real world legislative process is messy and full of compromise. A compromised health care bill isn’t perfect; it doesn’t deliver all its benefits until 2014 (although some benefits would happen right away), it doesn’t cover 100% the way single payer would, it doesn’t force doctors to accept patients they don’t want to accept, and it doesn’t eliminate big corporations that make profits from health care.
But the perfect, pure health care plan — achieved in a single step, rather than through gradual improvements and compromised — is much worse than that, because it will never exist outside of your imagination. I’d rather have health care — even if imperfect — than have what you’d offer me, which is a chance to remain pure and die prematurely for lack of health care.
@Avvaa: I'm not sure even WASP male immigrants are welcome. There have been several tourists who have been detained because…