Ten Wrong Reasons to Oppose Health Care Reform

[t3hDarkness]

Most of you are not the people this article is targeting, but people with second thoughts on the new health care bill (or need some more ammo for political arguments) may find it an interesting read.

Ten Wrong Reasons to Oppose Health Reform -- Politics Daily

Originally Posted by Jill Lawrence at Politics Daily

Greetings to my conservative readers, who have vented and philosophized about President Obama's health reform drive in countless comments and e-mails. I want to talk today to you.

Obviously, it is your perfect right to oppose what Obama and Democrats are trying to do. And there are legitimate reasons to do so. Maybe you think the government shouldn't be in the business of trying to make sure all Americans have health coverage. Maybe you think that would be nice, but we can't afford it. Maybe you oppose raising any taxes or fees to help finance changes in the health care system, or you think any savings we can wring out of it should be used for other priorities.

Yet these are not always the reasons readers offer for their (sometimes ALL-CAPS, often vitriolic) opposition -- as anyone can see in the comments sections of every column I write about health care. Here are some of the charges and claims, and why I think they are not the right reasons to oppose the health overhaul before Congress:

1. It is socialism. The Democratic plan would add about 15 million people over 10 years to Medicaid, the existing federal-state program now serving about 60 million poor and low-income Americans. It also would provide subsidies to middle-income families to help them buy private coverage. The bottom line, however, is there is no new government health program in the bill. The House passed a government-run plan (the "public option") in its health bill, but the Senate bill doesn't have one and the final product won't, either. Private insurance companies would not only survive under this bill, they would get millions of new customers. That doesn't sound like socialism.

2. It is a government takeover. The federal government would certainly be more involved in regulating insurance companies. The government would also set up and regulate a competitive new exchange, or marketplace, where small businesses and the uninsured could buy coverage. But the coverage would all be plans offered by private companies. The bill is, in fact, designed to preserve employer-based health benefits and the private insurance industry. So, increased government role, yes. Government takeover, no.

3. It is being "rammed through." There's a 100-year history of failed presidential attempts to achieve universal health coverage. The topic was discussed at length throughout the 2007-2008 presidential campaign. Since last January, it has consumed 15 months of hearings, legislating and debate in Congress. The House passed its bill in November and the Senate, by a 60-40 super-majority, passed its version in December. Take your pick -- a century, three years, 15 months -- but this doesn't meet any definition of "ramming."

4. Reconciliation is "ramming" AND cheating. Reconciliation is a Senate budget process instituted 30 years ago. Since reconciliation bills can't be filibustered, they need only 51 votes to pass -- so everybody uses them to get things done. A chart of 15 major reconciliation initiatives in last weekend's New York Times shows that Republicans have used the process many more times than Democrats. And we're not talking small ball. Republican presidents have signed reconciliation bills that, among other things, cut welfare benefits, expanded health coverage, raised taxes, reduced taxes and overhauled the student aid system. In this case, reconciliation will be used to amend a bill that's already passed the Senate with 60 votes. Cataclysmic, as Sen. John McCain put it? I think not.

5. It is unconstitutional. The bill requires every American to buy health insurance, including healthy people, and offers subsidies to help middle-income families. Insurance companies sought the mandate, saying it is the only way to keep premium costs from skyrocketing once they are not allowed to deny coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, drop sick people or limit annual and lifetime coverage (all popular provisions of the health bill). The mandate would not be the first imposed by state or federal governments -- they already require people to buy car insurance, buckle seat belts and wear motorcycle helmets, not to mention make sure their children are educated. Conservatives used to promote the health insurance mandate on grounds of personal responsibility. It's the law in Massachusetts.

6. It has sleazy special deals. The most notorious are the Cornhusker Kickback for Nebraska (permanent federal payments for Medicaid expansion) and the Florida exemption (seniors there would get to keep private Medicare Advantage plans that cost more than regular Medicare and are subsidized by taxpayers). The final package will not have these special deals. For procedural reasons, House members must first approve the Senate bill, which does include them, but the "fix" package -- possibly to be voted on the same day -- will remove them.

7. It would penalize senior citizens by cutting Medicare. The Senate bill would save more than $400 billion over 10 years by ending subsidies to Medicare Advantage and reducing projected payments to insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies and other players (some have already agreed to keep prices down). Seniors in regular Medicare would get the same benefits they have now, as well as additional services, like free preventive care. The AARP, which has 40 million members over age 50, says it supports health reform because it will put Medicare on a sounder fiscal footing.

8. It would do too little to curb costs. Amazingly, some people argue both No. 7 and No. 8. There are, in fact, many provisions intended to control costs. They include financial incentives for doctors and hospitals to provide efficient, coordinated care (rather than getting reimbursed for every test, procedure and hospital readmission); research into what treatments work best; a focus on preventive services and chronic care; pilot programs on ways to limit malpractice suits and awards; and an independent advisory board to recommend cost-saving changes in Medicare. These and other cost-cutting steps are described here.

9. It isn't popular. Did voters in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts send clear messages -- by electing Republicans -- that they don't want this health package? Inconclusive at best. The economy is almost always the primary factor in election outcomes. Beyond that, Democrats had exceptionally weak candidates in all three states. The latest national poll from Gallup found slightly more people saying they'd advise their representative to vote against rather than for health reform. In a new poll from The Economist, 53 percent said they support Obama's proposed changes to the health care system. It's fair to say the country is split. In any case, Obama and Congress are not bound by polls.

10. It doesn't give us the same coverage as Congress. Actually, Congress is trying to provide similar coverage through these state exchanges. They are modeled on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which looks like this. The offerings are mostly from private insurers and every federal employee -- including members of the House and Senate -- pays for his or her own coverage. In time, I'm betting people who get coverage at work will be jealous of those who get it on the exchanges. They'll have choices, just like Congress does. Eventually the exchanges may open up to the rest of us as well.

[Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds]

I'm just giving up on the willfully ignorant. Anyone who has access the internet has access to a comprehensive self-education about all these things. Instead, they insist on repeating the same ignorant [adjective: lacking information or knowledge], factually incorrect drivel they heard somewhere else.

Although it is pretty hilarious when the very people who will benefit the most from a national health care program are the ones making the biggest stink over it. I guess they don't want the support of affordable health insurance.

In short: this article is great.

[Valigarmander]

Obviously authored by a socialist.

[t3hDarkness]

^ You should see the comments to her article.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

*sighs*

[Metal Mario]

Originally Posted by Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds

Although it is pretty hilarious when the very people who will benefit the most from a national health care program are the ones making the biggest stink over it. I guess they don't want the support of affordable health insurance.

Yeah, where would we be without liberals to tell us what's in our own best interests?

[t3hDarkness]

^ Easy,

****ed in the *** by conservative politics.

Next question.

[Loot]

Originally Posted by Metal Mario

Yeah, where would we be without liberals to tell us what's in our own best interests?

[Deku Trii]

Simmer down, folks.

[Robotazy]

Just say Health Care Reform is rascist.

It would be vetoed yesterday.

[t3hDarkness]

^Anti-Health Care reform is also racist or classist, whatever.

Originally Posted by Deku Trii

Simmer down, folks.

I guarantee you I am smiling sweetly whenever I post.

[User Name]

Originally Posted by t3hDarkness

I guarantee you I am smiling sweetly whenever I post.

Because that's not creepy at all.

[Valigarmander]

It probably looks something like this.

[Metal Mario]

Originally Posted by t3hDarkness

^Anti-Health Care reform is also racist or classist, whatever.

Anybody who says anything against Obama is a hateful, racist douchebag.

[Robotazy]

?

[t3hDarkness]

Originally Posted by Metal Mario

Anybody who says anything against Obama is a hateful, racist douchebag.

Anybody who says anything for or against anyone is a hateful, racist douchebag; also gay, and possibly the antichrist.
Isn't that the way it works these days.

{Deleted}

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by Metal Mario

Yeah, where would we be without liberals to tell us what's in our own best interests?

Still shoveling **** for monarchs.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

Good luck MM.

[CaptHayfever]

Hate to be that guy, but...

they already require people to buy car insurance, buckle seat belts and wear motorcycle helmets, not to mention make sure their children are educated

They require drivers to buy car insurance, bikers to wear helmets, and parents to educate their children. People have the option not to drive or to drive non-motorcycles, or not to procreate.
People don't, however, have the option not to live (at least not in places where suicide is illegal).

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by CaptHayfever

Hate to be that guy, but... They require drivers to buy car insurance, bikers to wear helmets, and parents to educate their children. People have the option not to drive or to drive non-motorcycles, or not to procreate.
People don't, however, have the option not to live (at least not in places where suicide is illegal).

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Eh sort of. It has more to do with the concept of the risk pool being too shallow in health. If we ran auto insurance like we ran health insurance (not required but recommended with mediocre government subsidies for the poor and elderly), the cost of the insurance would be way too high and people simply wouldn't carry it.

One of the major problems with health insurance in this country is that the risk pool that insurers take payments from are generally shallow. They mainly have old people who eat up the money via claims or sick people who eat up the money via claims. The costs have currently priced out a large number of the young and healthy (18-35), who either cannot afford health insurance and/or don't have it offered to them through their jobs like the prior generations have.

Just to throw simple numbers around. Let's assume that the average insurance bill for a hypothetical company is 1000/year.

Pool 1: 70% of the covered are over the age of 50, and get more services than they pay in through any given year. Even saying they get a 5000/y payout on average, that's a shortfall of 4K per customer. This is supposed to be made up by the younger generations that aren't sick (like how the massive auto insurance payouts are supposed to be covered on the corporate line by thousands of safe drivers that don't get in wrecks). They won't have enough coming in to cover expenses. This triggers old people, sick people, preexisting conditions, etc to be either dropped or capped at X amount/year to control costs and/or (more likely and) the rates to go up across the board.

Pool 2: Everyone is in, resulting in a pool that reflects the age distribution. The younger, generally healthier sub 50 population pays into the pot, and it offsets the claims from the old, sick, seriously disabled, etc. In a pure market, it drives down costs over the long term because it not only provides more money coming in, but also provides a generally healthier population that is more likely to catch problems earlier.