House Heathcare Reform Bill on floor now.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So, now that the bill's passed, when do my new health benefits (being as I'm unemployed) kick in?

[Dalton]

So, now that the bill's passed, when do my new health benefits (being as I'm unemployed) kick in?

Was that a serious question?

[Rogue 9]

So, now that the bill's passed, when do my new health benefits (being as I'm unemployed) kick in?

Still has to get past the Senate, Chewie.

[Justyn]

So, now that the bill's passed, when do my new health benefits (being as I'm unemployed) kick in?

First, it has to pass the Senate, and even then you will have to pay for them.

This isn't a "free" healthcare bill: the "public option" is there to cover the people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid and don't make enough to pay for their own health insurance.

[darthdavid]

So, now that the bill's passed, when do my new health benefits (being as I'm unemployed) kick in?

First, it has to pass the Senate, and even then you will have to pay for them.

This isn't a "free" healthcare bill: the "public option" is there to cover the people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid and don't make enough to pay for their own health insurance.

And of course between what are likely to be higher premiums and a slightly, shall we say, optimistic idea of what qualifies as 'making enough to pay for your own health insurance' a lot of people are going to get pretty badly fucked over by this.

[Justyn]

So, now that the bill's passed, when do my new health benefits (being as I'm unemployed) kick in?

First, it has to pass the Senate, and even then you will have to pay for them.

This isn't a "free" healthcare bill: the "public option" is there to cover the people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid and don't make enough to pay for their own health insurance.

And of course between what are likely to be higher premiums and a slightly, shall we say, optimistic idea of what qualifies as 'making enough to pay for your own health insurance' a lot of people are going to get pretty badly fucked over by this.

I should have noted that I was saying that that was their reasoning, not mine.

And this just goes to show that politicians can always be trusted to do the right thing. But only after they have done absolutely everything else first.

[SirNitram]

Note the above comments are not actually based on knowledge; the relevent bit are subsidies based on income. Up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, in the House Bill.

[Justyn]

Note the above comments are not actually based on knowledge; the relevent bit are subsidies based on income. Up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, in the House Bill.

Did you actually read the bill, or are basing that on someone else's assessment of it? And in either case, could you please give a citation?

And how exactly are my comments not based on knowledge?

[darthdavid]

For a 4 person family the federal poverty level for 2009 is $22050 according to this . 400% of that is $88200. According to this

The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,400 a year, and the employee foots about 27 percent of this cost. Health insurance costs are the fastest growing expense for employers. Employer health insurance costs overtook profits in 2008, and the gap grows steadily.

With premiums only expected to grow under this plan and depending on just how big the subsidies are, where you live, how big your employer is and how far off from 'average' your premiums are I can see quite a lot of people in trouble under this. And remember, that average includes a lot of underinsured people who's coverage is cheap because it doesn't actually cover much of anything.

[SirNitram]

Note the above comments are not actually based on knowledge; the relevent bit are subsidies based on income. Up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, in the House Bill.

Did you actually read the bill, or are basing that on someone else's assessment of it? And in either case, could you please give a citation?

Yes. I did. I read it as HR5200, and I read the originals.

Read. Comprehend. Post. Link

And how exactly are my comments not based on knowledge?

It's this thing where you ignored every bit of the bill except the Public Option.

While I'm at it.

Full Medicaid benefits is being extended to those with 150% of the FPL income.

[The Romulan Republic]

See this is just what I feared. Honestly, it's probably worse than no public option. With such a limited base and the fact that it will appeal most to those with serious existing conditions the republicans and traitorcrats will be able point to it either as an example of government inefficiency (look at how much higher the premiums are than private insurance, free market for the win lol!) or as a disproportionate example of how expensive a full public option would be if tax dollars are used to keep premiums down. By creating such a crippled piece of shit they're basically guaranteeing that, if it doesn't outright fail, it will never be expanded into a system actually capable of the exploiting the advantages a public option should have...

It could go that way, but regardless of what was passed, the GOP would have been misrepresenting the results to peddle their propaganda. I'm inclined to say that some progress is better than none, and hope that this gets expanded in the future. Which is quite possible. A lot probably depends on the public's perception of the bill's success, as well as who gets the blame for its shortcomings. It is my hope that enough of the public will either like the bill or blame its flaws (quite fairly) on the Right that we won't see a resulting resurgence of the Right. And in the long run, the Right is going to keep shrinking in influence, barring some overwhelming reversal of recent trends and demographic changes.

[Knife]

I'm inclined to say that some progress is better than none, and hope that this gets expanded in the future. Which is quite possible.

This is the real fight, to get something in the law now. I understand that some Dems are disapointed that it is not the total conversion to universal health care in one shot, but now that it is there, and as long as it is not set up for failure from the get go, they can build on it later as people get used to the idea and figure out that the world isn't ending with it.

A lot probably depends on the public's perception of the bill's success, as well as who gets the blame for its shortcomings. It is my hope that enough of the public will either like the bill or blame its flaws (quite fairly) on the Right that we won't see a resulting resurgence of the Right. And in the long run, the Right is going to keep shrinking in influence, barring some overwhelming reversal of recent trends and demographic changes.

If the far Right keeps up the purity and pressure on the GOP for 2010, then I'm thinking the Dems will pick up more seats increasing their majority and can re tackle health care again in 2011 and perhaps again in 2013 if Obama gets his second term. In effect piecemeal this thing through until we get national health care. This round, while not that great, will at least get people used to the idea, and having either themselves or someone in their family have it and be able to say "Hey it saved my life." or some such to further political acceptance for the next round.

[open_sketchbook]

From what I've seen, it's always easier to add social programs then it is to take them away. People opposed to something often recant their positions once they personally benefit from it. In other words, even a shitty bill is better than no bill at all because it is incremental; it is unlikely that the changes will go away and next time the issue comes up for review there is nowhere for it to go other than towards better reform.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

0 - 150% of the federal poverty level: Medicaid will provide coverage.
150 - 400% of the federal poverty level: Declining quantities of financial subsidies to help you buy private insurance or the public option.
Elderly: Covered by Medicare.

-- that is how the government is planning to do this in terms of what the government provides in the process.

Then there is the public option:

The public option is: Not-for-profit health insurance run by the government, which budgetary reviews suggest will be judged as an acceptable alternative to private insurance by only 6 - 10 million Americans who are NOT covered by medicaid/medicare under the expansion of the former and existing terms of the later.

The government will also:

1. Much more heavily regulate the private insurance industry, the details of which have already been posted to this thread.
2. Require large corporations to provide healthcare to all of their employees.
3. Require almost everyone to buy insurance, but not everyone--people who can demonstrate that buying insurance would cost more than a certain percentage of their income will be exempt.
4. Penalize large corporations and people who are expected to buy insurance, and don't.

[Qwerty 42]

Out of curiosity, how sweeping was universal healthcare when first enacted in the U.K., Canada, etc.?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Out of curiosity, how sweeping was universal healthcare when first enacted in the U.K., Canada, etc.?

Total, absolute, irrevocable, and all-encompassing. Nobody has really done this retardedly incremental approach before.

[Darth Wong]

Here's the full text of the Canada Health Act:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/C/C-6.pdf

It's a whopping 14 pages long, despite the fact that it's bilingual (meaning that the English document is only half that size). How big is the American health care bill, again?

Remember how Americans like to brag about how great their "gridlock" system of government is? I used to hear that kind of bragging even here on this forum. Funny how I haven't heard it lately ...

[Justyn]

And how exactly are my comments not based on knowledge?

It's this thing where you ignored every bit of the bill except the Public Option.[/quote]

I did base my statement on knowledge, I just didn't have whatever information you had; not all of us have the free time to read and understand a bill roughly the length of Atlas Shrugged or War and Peace after all. And before you link to the congressional website again, you should know that they only keep searches up for so long; you should just post the number of the section in question rather than posting a dead link to a page that has about 130 sections in it.

Here's the full text of the Canada Health Act:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/C/C-6.pdf

It's a whopping 14 pages long, despite the fact that it's bilingual (meaning that the English document is only half that size). How big is the American health care bill, again?

It depends on the type face and font, but a PDF version of it is still over 1000 pages long; I've seen claims as high as 2500 pages though. And I've seen a printout of the bill that was more than a foot and a half thick.

Remember how Americans like to brag about how great their "gridlock" system of government is? I used to hear that kind of bragging even here on this forum. Funny how I haven't heard it lately ...

It does work when the Legislative and Executive branches aren't working together to do something; the last time we had both working together like this, we got the PATRIOT act. You have to love Big Brother. Or else.

[The Romulan Republic]

We won't get that in America if this bill passes. The amendment put in by a bipartisan committee to protect the state's right to choose single payer was stripped out of the final bill at the request of the Obama maladmistristration.

Let me just clarify: are you saying this bill makes it actually illegal for an individual state to choose single-payer health care?

Even still, I can accept it if Obama had to make some pretty big concessions to get some improvements passed. American is not Canada. We'll probably get single-payer in a generation or two, if the country continues its Left-ward swing.

[Darth Wong]

Remember how Americans like to brag about how great their "gridlock" system of government is? I used to hear that kind of bragging even here on this forum. Funny how I haven't heard it lately ...

It does work when the Legislative and Executive branches aren't working together to do something; the last time we had both working together like this, we got the PATRIOT act. You have to love Big Brother. Or else.

Bullshit. This bill is so large because of all the endless negotiations required in order to appease everyone: one of the supposed "benefits" of the "gridlock" mechanism. The Canadian bill was pushed through from the top down, which is why it's only 14 pages despite containing both French and English versions.

How the fuck would "gridlock" result in bills being smaller? Have you even tried to think this through?

[Starglider]

Bullshit. This bill is so large because of all the endless negotiations required in order to appease everyone: one of the supposed "benefits" of the "gridlock" mechanism.

One of the claimed problems with European style proportional representation, which allows for legislative bodies containing more, smaller parties, is that 'endless negotiations' will prevent anything from happening. In practice though, while it does take longer to pass legislation, these nations (e.g. Germany) don't seem to have any particular problem with length of legislation. Certainly no other nation I know of has the ludicrous amount of 'riders' and other nonsensical inclusions that the US has.

As such the problem with the US isn't just that it has lots of opposing, arguing groups - other nations handle that fine - it's the sheer complexity of the system and the seemingly infinite number of ways that said groups can sabotage each other. The same unnecessary complexity makes corruption easier to hide in the mess, and of course the corporate lobbying mechanism is focused on the practice of tacking additional crap onto bills instead of changing their fundamentals.

Viewed as an experiment, the US system of government had some notable successes, but has fallen into a declining spiral that makes it increasingly inefficient and ineffective at actually providing the services a government should, without providing the claimed exceptional protection against tyranny (vs other first world nations). It is regrettable that widespread constitution and founding father worship effectively rules out major revisions to the system.

Incidentally are there any other countries which worship their constitution and/or founders as much as the US does?

[Darth Wong]

Bullshit. This bill is so large because of all the endless negotiations required in order to appease everyone: one of the supposed "benefits" of the "gridlock" mechanism.

One of the claimed problems with European style proportional representation, which allows for legislative bodies containing more, smaller parties, is that 'endless negotiations' will prevent anything from happening. In practice though, while it does take longer to pass legislation, these nations (e.g. Germany) don't seem to have any particular problem with length of legislation. Certainly no other nation I know of has the ludicrous amount of 'riders' and other nonsensical inclusions that the US has.

As such the problem with the US isn't just that it has lots of opposing, arguing groups - other nations handle that fine - it's the sheer complexity of the system and the seemingly infinite number of ways that said groups can sabotage each other. The same unnecessary complexity makes corruption easier to hide in the mess, and of course the corporate lobbying mechanism is focused on the practice of tacking additional crap onto bills instead of changing their fundamentals.

Most countries seem to have reasonably good party discipline. Even when they have smaller parties, they still have voting blocs which are more cohesive than those in the American system, where every politician is out to snag pork for his home state and/or corporate backers first, show loyalty to his party second, and consider the voter's interests third. In other words, the problem is not just parties, but individual politicians.

Viewed as an experiment, the US system of government had some notable successes, but has fallen into a declining spiral that makes it increasingly inefficient and ineffective at actually providing the services a government should, without providing the claimed exceptional protection against tyranny (vs other first world nations). It is regrettable that widespread constitution and founding father worship effectively rules out major revisions to the system.

Incidentally are there any other countries which worship their constitution and/or founders as much as the US does?

The US is unusual in that it has a discrete moment at which it was founded. Most countries just slowly develop into what they are; their legitimate history is perceived to stretch back far before any moment of "founding". Their culture is also perceived to extend beyond whatever any such moment of "founding" might encompass.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The US is unusual in that it has a discrete moment at which it was founded. Most countries just slowly develop into what they are; their legitimate history is perceived to stretch back far before any moment of "founding". Their culture is also perceived to extend beyond whatever any such moment of "founding" might encompass.

Agreed, no other country in the world has the form of "Worship, that America has for its "founding Fathers" largely as you say, because most nations don't have anything like "founding fathers"

Its funny and perhaps sad that for most Americans, "American History" doesn't start until 1776... Most people know nothing about history before that except the "We were a British colony, British where evil, raised taxes, we rebelled."

[ray245]

The US is unusual in that it has a discrete moment at which it was founded. Most countries just slowly develop into what they are; their legitimate history is perceived to stretch back far before any moment of "founding". Their culture is also perceived to extend beyond whatever any such moment of "founding" might encompass.

Agreed, no other country in the world has the form of "Worship, that America has for its "founding Fathers" largely as you say, because most nations don't have anything like "founding fathers"

What about Turkey?

[Mr Bean]

The US is unusual in that it has a discrete moment at which it was founded. Most countries just slowly develop into what they are; their legitimate history is perceived to stretch back far before any moment of "founding". Their culture is also perceived to extend beyond whatever any such moment of "founding" might encompass.

Agreed, no other country in the world has the form of "Worship, that America has for its "founding Fathers" largely as you say, because most nations don't have anything like "founding fathers"

What about Turkey?

A better example would be South Africa. However their founding father is still very much alive. Thousands worked to break Apartheid but he's already down in the history books as the one who pulled it off and what will they say about him a hundred years from now when everyone who knew him is long dead?