Do you know if the House bill has a provision for individual mandate? I tried to read through the bill but you speak way more legalese than me (which is none).
Yup, it does. Subsidies would be available for low income people who couldn't afford any other coverage.
It's actually one of the provisions I'm not real enthusiastic about...it just seems kind of counterproductive. The insurance industry and hospital lobby are all for it, too, which sends alarm bells going off in my head.
But...the abortion restrictions got through, and the mandated insurance industry reforms are still there. So I'm happy.
I agree with you there. I'm not one who is OMG MY FREEDOMZ but I think a mandate is not only counterproductive but yeah, also just kinda anti-freedom. As much as theoretically it could help lower costs overall if used for prevention. *shrug* guess we'll see what the Senate comes up with.
On the one hand it concerns me, but on the other hand I can see the need for it. To keep an insurance system viable, you need both those who will use it a lot and those who won't in the system, to keep it from collapsing under it's own weight. Other than a nationalized health care system, where everyone is covered under a Medicare type plan, an individual mandate is the only way to ensure that healthy people will sign up for the public option, or any health insurance.
Eh, they were saying the same things about the bill when it was in the finance committee, and before it passed the House. Just be sure to make it crystal clear to your senator that they will lose their seat if they don't vote for it. Ultimately, I believe that is what made the difference in the House.
I haven't been able to decide how I feel about this health care bill. I'm pretty sure I don't like it and probably would be inclined to urge my reps to vote against it, but I'm keeping quiet (in terms of contacting my reps) because I'm not quite sure.
That said, before canonizing Rep Cao, please understand that his motivation was probably entirely political. His district is heavily Democratic, heavily African-American, and voting against this bill would have been a sure path to his political demise. I highly, highly doubt that he did this as some sort of courageous bucking of his own party, but rather as a means of ensuring his own political future.
Politico just did an interesting story showing the breakdown of Democrats voting on this bill. Overwhelmingly, those Dems who serve districts that voted for McCain in '08 voted against the bill, and those serving districts that voted for Obama voted for it. These votes, Dem and Republican alike, were almost entirely political calculations as opposed to ideological stands.
Comments 7
Reply
It's actually one of the provisions I'm not real enthusiastic about...it just seems kind of counterproductive. The insurance industry and hospital lobby are all for it, too, which sends alarm bells going off in my head.
But...the abortion restrictions got through, and the mandated insurance industry reforms are still there. So I'm happy.
Reply
Reply
Reply
http://charter.net/news/read.php?ps=1018&rip_id=%3CD9BRMHUG0%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS
Reply
Reply
That said, before canonizing Rep Cao, please understand that his motivation was probably entirely political. His district is heavily Democratic, heavily African-American, and voting against this bill would have been a sure path to his political demise. I highly, highly doubt that he did this as some sort of courageous bucking of his own party, but rather as a means of ensuring his own political future.
Politico just did an interesting story showing the breakdown of Democrats voting on this bill. Overwhelmingly, those Dems who serve districts that voted for McCain in '08 voted against the bill, and those serving districts that voted for Obama voted for it. These votes, Dem and Republican alike, were almost entirely political calculations as opposed to ideological stands.
Reply
Leave a comment