“What does this bill accomplish?”

For starters, a couple well-publicized items:

It extends insurance coverage to tens of millions of Americans who are not currently covered, to near-universal coverage (94%).

It eliminates exclusions for pre-existing conditions so insurance is portable and people aren’t tied to their jobs.

It does so without raising costs, probably lowering costs for the majority of consumers.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/10/cbo_says_senate_health_bill_wo.html?hpid=topnews

The defense of the bill is that it makes strides towards objectives of better coverage for more people – not that it will “assuredly pass.”

No, I don’t see the problem. If you took ten minutes on the internet, you could confirm the basic features of the bill. The problem is the misinformation and misdirection and feigned confusion from the bill’s opponents – nothing to do with the bill itself.

To eliminate the tax deduction for employer benefits and replace it with a system that provides tax deductions for health care plans alongside HSA account. The Republican candidate ran on that program. Obama claimed it would amount to a tax on healthcare, and proposed a system that would expand benefits while reducing costs.

Republicans couldn’t match that offer and, as it turns out, neither could he.

“Give me a break, though: it’s too hard to understand, so we don’t want it? Talk about diminished expectations.”

It’s not that the components of the bill are hard to understand. What is hard is understanding whether or not it will benefit the majority of Americans, and why it will do so. For example, why do I benefit from a tax exemption for the health benefits of union members? I find that very difficult to understand.

What does this bill accomplish? What (other than bribes) ties these 2,000 pages together? The only defense offered by congressional Democrats is that the bill will assuredly pass. Do you see the problem?

Here is a description of the Senate bill:

http://help.senate.gov/DetailedSummary.pdf

Here is a comparison of the House and Senate bills:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/HScomparison.pdf

It doesn’t seem that hard to me.

That’s a different objection. Apparently the “rising premium” argument fails.

Give me a break, though: it’s too hard to understand, so we don’t want it? Talk about diminished expectations.

The bill comprises 2000+ pages of legislative complexity. Over 100 new agencies are to be created to do who knows what. Somebody called “The Secretary” is given wide ranging but ill defined powers. Union members get breaks that others don’t. Nobody has even tried to inform the electorate, much less convince them, how on balance they will be better off after the bill becomes law.

The proposal is so complicated, its creation has been so secretive, and its proponents are so mistrusted that a great many people simply want the whole thing to go away.

Isn’t this a little simplistic?

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/69763-cbo-report-predicts-increases-in-insurance-premiums

It would result in a decrease in premiums for those with employer policies, and an increase in health insurance offered as an employment benefit.

It would result in an increase for those buying individual policies, but nearly half of the individual policies would be subsidized.

The Democrats say that the coverages would be better, so the increase in price adds value.

The Republican final response: “The Democrats bills will still require nearly 14 million Americans to purchase unsubsidized insurance that is more expensive than they could get under current law.” 14 million people is about 5% of the population.

Judging the merits of the bill by the strength of your critique, I think it must be a winner.

profnickd: Middle America is screwed without the healthcare reform bill. People with money can always find a means to pay. It still amazes me that those that have the most to lose as the ones screaming the loudest. They would benefit the most, not the least. Which just makes one wonder how many of them actually know what they’re protesting against. Universal coverage so that they don’t lose their healthcare benefits if they lose their job? Protest! Pre-existing conditions so that they don’t benefits? protest! Cost savings that lower the premiums so that their families don’t go into bankruptcy if one of the their family members gets seriously ill? Protest! Wah????

Hear hear!

I would further add that if the lasting “conventional wisdom” impression of ObamaCare turns out to be Failure with a capital F, even voting AGAINST reform now won’t save the Dems later.

Say what you will about Congressional Republicans, but they at least have the balls to stubbornly continue pursuing unpopular policies that were soundly rejected by voters in the previous elections. The most recent example was diverting additional troops to Iraq after the disastrous 1996 elections.

MARCU$