Quote:
Original post by Chris Reynolds
I understand some of your points (I'm sure from reading the bill you can understand it's quite daunting), but many of the problems arise in that the bill, like any bill, may not explicitly define itself, but the meanings are in there.
No, that is interpretation, and that's an opportunity for specious argumentation. The reason that bills like this are so voluminous is precisely because they take pains to clarify as much as possible of what they pertain to. Ambiguities are loopholes, and further legislation is frequently passed to close them via amendments.
Quote:
1.) Do you think that illegal immigrants are going to be excluded? How will they do that? Certainly someone in this country that does not pay taxes shouldn't be allowed healthcare coverage.
I don't think illegal immigrants are going to be excluded, nor do I think they should. They contribute to our economy by doing work that many of us do not want to do, by buying food and clothing and paying for shelter. They enroll their children in our schools - children who are often citizens by right of birth - and thus their health is in the interest of the welfare of a number of our citizens.
Illegal immigration is a complicated issue, but I do not see it as a problem with a single-payer or public healthcare system, especially since they already go to emergency rooms (and pay cash) in extreme situations.
Quote:
2.) Regarding physicians all being paid the same:
(A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS.-Those physicians who agree to accept the payment rate
established under section 223
PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED
PHYSICIANS.-Those physicians who agree not
to impose charges (in relation to the payment
rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C)
So all physicians that participate will be affected by this.
The document states that those who agree to accept the payment rate will be bound by it. Duh? The rates will be set and published before the physicians elect to opt in. If they find those rates unacceptable, they can elect not to participate. What's the big deal?
I should point out that Health Maintenance Organizations do this, too. Health insurance companies negotiate rates that they pay to in-network and out-of-network doctors (in the rare instances where they agree to cover out-of-network referrals). This maps perfectly to "preferred" and "participating, non-preferred." It's good enough for private industry; I'd think you'd find that to be good for government, too.
The problem that you and many who share your attitudes have is tremendous ignorance about how the existing, private healthcare system actually works. Consequently, when you see something explicitly spelled out in the proposed public option(s)
that is a normal, existing practice in the private sector, you have a fit. It's kinda embarrassing, really - for you.
Quote:
3.) Your comparison of a company that contributes to the private healthcare that THEY provide to THEIR employees to a company being TAXED for not participating in the public option really doesn't make any sense.
Well, it would if that's what anyone was saying. §311, Health Coverage Participation Requirements, states that an employer meets the requirements if it does
all of the following:
- Offer coverage;
- Contribute toward coverage if the employee accepts; and
- Contribute in lieu of coverage if the employee declines but still obtains coverage through means other than being covered by spousal or dependent benefits.
That is, the company is only taxed if an employee declines coverage offered by the company, obtains coverage from a third-party, and is not covered by a spouse or individual with whom the employee has a dependent relationship. "He's not taking the health plan you offer, so kick some of the money
you would be laying out anyway into a pot that pays for his public option."
Quote:
Republicans read the bill implicitly, noticing that the bill gives the government more control over their health and well-being.
Nah. You don't read the bill, but then you claim it does things that it doesn't. Your greatest failing is not reading all the sections that are cross-referenced against one another. §313, which you cite (carelessly and somewhat erroneously) defined specifics for an option in §311. By not considering the two sections together (and, really, along with §312, at a minimum), you arrive at poor understanding of what the bill actually proposes, and then proceed to knot your panties.
Quote:
That seems to be the central debate. I don't think it's fair to call Republicans (not all of them at least) "fear-mongers" for reading the bill this way, it's just a fundamental difference in trusting the government.
It's got nothing to do with trust and everything to do with comprehension.
Quote:
Original post by Chris Reynolds
I wouldn't be nearly as opposed to this bill if I didn't think it would effectively run private insurance into the ground.
Why is it so important to have private insurance? They have failed to provide sufficient and cost-effective healthcare. Why are you so dedicated to preserving these inefficient fossils?