No Mandate, Perhaps Redefinition of Emergencies

[liberalmike27]

I realize the chance of the bill getting through the Senate with any reasonable cost containment measures is nil, so I guess they are skeptical of the much vaunted Public Option getting through.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20091228/D9CS98AG0.html

But I feel like the House, a third of the legislative body, the House of the people more attached to the people's needs, should have some say-so in these matter, and not be totally neutered.

So I propose them getting rid of the mandate for insurance. I'm not sure how folks are going to buy insurance without money anyway. You get credits, on your taxes, but that assumes you've got thousands every month to spend on insurance first, to even get them back. Or perhaps there is some kind of device to link up your insurance, or maybe I just have no idea how it works. But I've never liked 'forcing' people to buy their product, as the 'solution' to the health care problem. I think additionally it'll create further problems in our economy, funneling money into insurance companies that were going to rent, utilities, products, and services, that will no longer get them.

So, what does the house do? Get rid of the mandate, but still offer the credits. You'll save money, as many won't bother. Sure, you won't cover as many people by the forcing method, but you can make some other changes. Redefine what Emergencies are. The way it is now, you've got to be bleeding, or unconscious before an ER can treat you. Change that to where ERs, or perhaps general practitioners, are enabled to diagnose you, and if you've got something like Breast, prostate, or any other cancer, that's terminal, or need a heart bypass, or some other procedure, then you allow hospitals to treat, as they do now, when you are stabbed, or shot. Then reimburse them, as we do now, a reasonable amount for the procedures.

This fills the gap where it needs, it "Offers" a program for those who want to accept the "credits" for insurance, and it assures that people can at least have the minimal treatment, for all emergencies which their lives have left them unable to contend with by income, or insurance.

This plan would be cheaper, and would rid the bill of the most onerous part of the bill, the forced buy-in, that most of Obama's base doesn't like.

I'm one of the rare liberals that feels like if you are provided insurance by your employer that maybe you should pay taxes, but I definitely prefer the financing method provided for by the House. Either people who get insurance from their employers should pay, or the people who don't should be compensated for the fact that they DON'T get those tax benefits for insurance they buy.

It'll be a better bill, a more palatable bill, and it gives the house something to do, without them inserting the public option that is so loathed by the Democrats who seem bribed by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Still, in all of this, it is so sick that a few rich people in corporate America get away with screwing all Americans in this way. There is nothing that forgives these democrats, and we need to evict these pus-cells from our party through the primary process. If a republican wins, so be it. At least we won't be corrupted, and maybe next time they'll actually fight for us, the real people, instead of huge companies, at least until money corrupts them absolutely, which it inevitably will.

[FLDCVADem]

1. The Senate would never go along with it

And like it or not, the House has to come up with something that will get 60 votes in the Senate or nothing passes.

[liberalmike27]

2. I know, that's what I'm saying

The Senate is basically saying FU to the House, like "you have no power."

But to make the bill better, more palitable to Americans, you need to remove the mandate. Both the liberal base, and the right-wingers hate that forcing of people to buy the product.

But you need to do something to fill that gap, which is easily defendable as, Keeping 45,000 Americans from dying each year. The people that die, are those who can't be diagnosed, or aren't diagnosed. Certainly, if you've got undiagnosed prostate cancer, it is an emergency. Yet you aren't bleeding, and you can't go to an ER, or a GP and say, Hey, I think I'm dying of prostate cancer but I've got no money. Can you diagnose me. And if they were to do so, they aren't going to treat you.

[FLDCVADem]

3. In this case, the House doesn't have any real power

It all rests with the Senate.

[liberalmike27]

4. Well, in Any case they choose really

Actually, they do have the power to stop it.

But this is a better choice, one that makes the bill more palitable. Thus far I've not heard anyone threaten to sink it if they took out the mandate. They aren't covering everyone anyway. So why not open up this for debate. Rid ourselves of the mandate to buy it, but make sure the people who are dying get treatment.

[FLDCVADem]

6. True, they have the power to kill the bill

They don't have the power to do what you want them to do.

[terrell9584]

5. Actually, the House does have the power

By placing the blame on the Senate to save their own asses and rejecting the Senate version of the bill.


Right now, the Senate has exposed itself as being little beyond worthless and a place where open bribery was used to obtain a quick political victory.


If House Democrats want to save their own electoral skins in 2010 now might be a good time to throw the Senate under the rhetorical bus. Chances of a GOP takeover are smaller in the Senate than they are in the House and by doing this it allows the House Democrats to establish themselves as different from the Senate Democrats.


Someone has to take political blame for this. Why shouldn't it be the body that went and pissed everyone off?

[whattheidonot]

10. contributions

contributions drive the process. the concern for contribtions outway everything else evidently. contributon set the rules. Obama had the power but chose political survival and contributions. That is what it has become. The need for contributions has become uppermost. The powerful rule without a vision. the pieces of the puzzle are not fitting together to say the least. Things at home are bad and we have ourselves in foreign wars that appear to be endless. What to do?

[havocmom]

13. +1

[clear eye]

15. The House has the same power that Landrieu, Nelson, Lieberman, et. al. have.

They can obstruct if the bill is too damaging to their constituencies.

[whattheidonot]

7. corrupt nonsense

expecting market driven companies that have paid everybody off to provide true health care is a folly. health care does not easily fall into a business model driven by stockholders. The idea becomes providing as little care as possible. get you in, get you out. Doctors are more worried about business than care. if they care for you they go out of business. great system

[liberalmike27]

8. Well I agree

Trying to put bandaids on this gusher of a flesh-wound we call our health care system is insane.

But in light of where we are, I'd say we need to come up with something for the House to do. And I think rejecting the idea of a mandate, not only may be accepted by the Senate, but would be politically helpful in passing the bill, and may even get some republicans on-board.

The bill doesn't cover everyone anyway. I we make it voluntary, it'll be much cheaper anyway, and it'll free up the money we need to spend on GPs and ERs diagnosing the conditions of the people who are actually dying too.

And I've always thought that perhaps providing some extra money toward some of those huge clinics that MSNBC, and others sponsored before in cities all over the states would be a good idea too. They could also be used, as they were, to diagnose people who are at deaths door, but perhaps aren't as aware of it as you'd think.

To me, the real problem is the people who are dying. As far as I can tell, this bill is not likely to diagnose it, and a lot of people who don't have ready money to spend to buy insurance, with or without the tax credits, are the ones who will still be uninsured. So it doesn't even address that problem.

[BeFree]

9. Basically

There are still uninsured people.

Now they can go to the ER and get bent over the table.

And who pays the ER bill? Potentially it is free to the patient so the Gov and ER split the bill. That's the system we have.

With the HCR now, at least there will be many free clinics set up and paid for by the gov. Now the ERs won't have to split the bill. The ERs will be somewhat off the hook and patients might get better care.

BeFree, trying to make lemonade out of a lemon.

[whattheidonot]

11. doctors.

These insurance problems are deterring students from medical studies.

[BeFree]

12. this bill...

...has $$$ for educating students. They will be subsidized, they should be. We need a million new practitioners.

It is the progressive thing to do. It is morally correct.

[havocmom]

14. Nail, hammer, squarely met! Bravo

and welcome to DU, whattheidonot. Looking forward to reading more from you. :hi: