Raise your hand if...

[bain_sidhe]

you or someone you know would benefit from legislation that does the following:

• Prohibits insurance companies from denying you (or someone you know) coverage for a "pre-existing condition."
  
  
• Prohibits insurance companies from recinding coverage when you(osyk) get sick, based on an error or misrepresentation made on an application submitted more than some specified amount of time ago (like six months or a year).
  
  
• Requires all insurance policies to offer a standardized, reasonable set of benefits.
  
  
• Provides a subsidy for you(osyk) to purchase insurance if you can't afford it.

Because I think that's the minimum we're going to get. Don't misunderstand, it's not what I want. My first choice would be single payer, my second choice would be a "robust" (read: real) public option available to both individuals and to companies as a choice for their "group" policy. But if the above is all we get, I wouldn't reject it, because I personally know too many people who would benefit from it. In two cases, it may save their lives.

So, aside from what you would *prefer*, would you or someone you know benefit from legislation that provides the above? And if so, would you oppose it anyway? And why?

[LWolf]

1. "If you can't afford it."

Who gets to determine what I can, or cannot, afford?

[bain_sidhe]

2. Good question

What I've read is that it will be some percentage of "poverty level" for the number of people in your family. Not a perfect measure, by any means, but objective and less likely to be "game-able" - the bad news being, it doesn't take into account personal circumstances, like f'rinstance, having two kids in college, or having to pay child support to a second family, or having a huge debt-load to service, or things like that.

Still, the people at the lowest end of the income distribution will get a full subsidy, and the numbers I've seen bandied about have at least some subsidy for up to 400% of poverty level (whatever that is for how many people you have in your family).

[LWolf]

4. I'll wait to see what actually comes about.

I don't expect great things, but then, I think that HR 676 is the best option suggested so far.

I'm concerned about mandatory insurance that doesn't take all those pre-existing economic factors you mention into account.

[bain_sidhe]

12. Didn't mean to ignore this...

just got drawn into another conversation.

Personally, I'm against mandatory insurance if there isn't a public option to choose. But you make a good point too. But I don't know a solution short of presenting a personal/family "balance sheet" to the "overseer" of the subsidies. Maybe if they made it a voluntary option to apply for a "hardship" exemption where you could list those "pre-existing economic factors" if you wanted to?

[LWolf]

14. I'm a little skeptical about the odds of that happening.

I hope whatever we end up with makes things better for more more people than it makes things worse; a net improvement, so to speak. ;)

[Cleita]

3. All those points are meaningless because in no time, they will be back to

business as usual. The only point that would make sense is "prohibit private insurance from offering basic comprehensive health care".

[bain_sidhe]

5. So you would oppose a bill that did those things?

Even if it only helped for a short time? I mean, I can actually see a rationale for that (although I don't find it persuasive enough for me), but I want to hear what other people have to say about why they would or wouldn't support such minimalist, incrementalist legislation.

[Cleita]

6. When it becomes law, it's not for a short time. We in California are still

suffering from the Jarvis Amendment thirty years later. Besides just making the insurance companies behave for a time being is not real reform. It's more of the same. I thought that our so called intelligentsia could come up with a plan to convince the insurers that they need to get out of the business of basic health care, but none seem to be able to.

[bain_sidhe]

7. I don't understand your point

When you say "it's not for a short time" you seem to be saying that any bill that helped would "not be for a short time" - but you also say that insurance companies would only "behave" for a short time. Can you clarify?

**edited to note: I don't know what the Jarvis Amendment is, so that could be the source of my confusion...

[Cleita]

8. The Jarvis Amendment in California or proposition 13 reduced property

taxes to 1%. It also brought us the 2/3 needed in the legislature in a rider back in the late seventies. In a few years we were flooded with homeless because programs that kept them housed and fed were stopped. We still have homeless almost thirty years later and they are increasing. Arnold has slashed even more services because he won't raise taxes. No one has rolled this destructive legislation back and it continues to destroy my state.

If a health care plan is passed that bleeds the country dry in money, I really don't think anyone will try to roll it back. They will walk away from the issue for another twenty years like they did when Hillary's plan failed.

[bain_sidhe]

9. Ok, "If a health care plan is passed that bleeds the country dry in money"

I think you're, as the lawyers say, "assuming facts not in evidence." My question was about a "good" bill that doesn't go far enough. It might be that the bill that passes "bleeds the country dry" but that's not what I asked about. I want to know if you'd support or oppose a bill that did some good things, but not enough of them.

BTW, your point that if something/anything passes the country might walk away from adding to it (or fixing it, if necessary) is the rationale I could see for opposing it. It drains the boil - i.e., relieves some of the pressure, but doesn't treat the underlying problem. But if a bill was presented that did all the things I set out in my OP, I'd support it, simply because it would help people I know and care about a great deal. Even if it doesn't go far enough for me.

[Cleita]

10. No assumptions the figures are already out there as

crunched by the CBO. Look it up.

[bain_sidhe]

11. Kinda going off track here

I didn't mean to get into the minutia, but I think you've been clear enough for me to get the gist of the answer to part of my question - yes, you'd oppose a bill that does the things I posited, because (correct me if I've misread you):

1) you think the requirements would be likely to be circumvented fairly quickly by insurance companies

2) it would "relieve the pressure" and prevent additional reforms

and

3) it would cost too much for the benefits delivered.

Is that about right?

But, now, for the rest of the question, do you know anyone who would be helped by the provisions I posted? (Not going into whether the help would be lasting, or how much it would cost.)

**edited for tyop in the code**

[Cleita]

13. I really don't.

For this to work, Medicare or the version in the House bill HR676 needs to be the true public option that people can choose from in the insurance exchange, whether they or their employer pays for it or they get it with a govt. subsidy or even for free. But it so far has not been made available to everyone, nor does it seem like it will be. I've been listening to a lot of the double speak from our own Democrats on this all the way up to the President and they have not answered the question in this way that Medicare would be available as well. Most of what has been said is that low income people will get some govt. help to purchase insurance, but nothing has been said about Medicare being one of the choices. Of course the insurance lobby is behind this. They shudder at the thought that this could actually happen.