Which things in the Senate bill wouldn't you think were good if they

[BR_Parkway]

had passed independently? Besides the mandate - which will be debated for quite some time I'm certain.

Which things in the bill do you actually like?

[zipplewrath]

1. Two ways to look at it

This is a two fold question to a singular answer.

To directly answer your question, my primary complaint about the current senate bill is that it mandates purchase, with no real cost protection for individual consumers. Yes, everyone must be covered, but there is little (if any real) price protection for those purchases. There are supposed global limits on profits and costs, but any particular individual can be charged (or more importantly quoted) just about any price they can "justify" to a review board.

I also don't like that we are basically maintaining the protection of Pharma by preventing government negotiation on perscription prices. Combine that with the flat out ban of re-importation and it's a huge double whammy.

Now. The REAL issue here is that the whole bill, in total, without any form of "government run" program is merely an extension of "regulatory control". It is control of a private industry function through regulation. Yes, it is how we control many industries. But it is NOT how we should be controlling health care, anymore than how we should control roads, or the military or the fire department.

Progressives were asked to swallow hard when single payer was abandoned before we ever got started. The CBO wasn't even initially asked to "score" it. The alternative was "public option". The last gasp was the "medicaid bye in". But it is all gone. We have created a system that forces people to purchase health insurance, with no real individual cost control features. THAT is wrong.

[Recursion]

2. Eh?

I thought prices could only be altered based on age and pre-existing conditions, and those were limited to 300% of the base price?

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Who sets the base price? nt

[Recursion]

5. As now, they're negotiated with the large purchasing pools

And people who aren't in a large purchasing pool now will be in one via the Exchange.

[zipplewrath]

7. Exactly

They can tailor the price to the particular individual. So if you have some condition that they don't like, you'll only be "eligible" for the "public option plan". And that plan comes with a huge base price.

Also, you know about the "fraud" option as well. You can be dropped/denied based upon fraud. Fraud is defined by the insurance companies and can include "forgetting" to mention previous conditions. Had an injury in 12th grade you forgot to list on the form? You're "guilty" of fraud and can have your policy canceled. Also, those who are "guilty" of fraud can be charged even more.

Basically it puts the congress in charge of consumer protection, you know, the same guys doing that for the credit card industry.

[Recursion]

8. 300% is hugely different from infinity %

and infinity % is the markup today.

[zipplewrath]

9. Not functionally

There are people today who have no health insurance because they can't afford it. It is available, at a price they can't afford. The functional difference between that and it not being available is inconsequential. Truth is that people today have health insurance, through their employer (that will satisfy the senate HCR proposal) that is so expensive they can't afford to use it. The co-pays or deductibles are so large that they can't afford the procedures. (mamograms with $300-500 "copays").

[Recursion]

10. That's the point of subsidies.

Yes, it's irksome that that means our tax dollars will be going to pay jacked-up premiums for people with illnesses; it's still going to be better than the way we're paying for them now.

[zipplewrath]

11. They won't meet the need

Read again about how folks WITH health insurance can't afford to use it because of the fees, which will be unsubsidized.

[damntexdem]

3. Restrictions on abortion coverage, with a state opt in.

Allowing insurers to charge extra for pre-existing conditions.

And I can't put aside the mandate enacted without adequate choice.

[LeFleur1]

6. What is worse than

discrimination in health care?

I'm sure if the discrimination involved anyone but poor women there would be a huge outcry.