Comparison of House & Senate Health Bills
 

Doesn't cover everything but is a place to start.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091226/...ring_the_bills

Ron

Good post Ron, thanks for the link.

Thanks Ernie. I just wish they had given a little more of the details. But the final bill most likely won't be like either of them.

Ron

I think the final bill will be very close to the one that passed, just barely, all ready. The reason is because the Democrats aren't totally stupid (OK, that's a stretch, maybe they are :) ) and they would be smart (is that possible? ) to NOT "tinker" with it. If they start changing and merging it with the other bill it's a virtual gaurentee they will loose votes and the whole thing will go up in smoke.

Their back is against the wall, they accept it as it is or risk loosing it all.

Yeah, both the Senate and House wrote bills that easily met their goals.

Leave 20 million + still uninsured, and cost 3 trillion dollars. Good place to start.

Actually the numbers sound pretty good to me as to who get's insured compared to who wasn't insured before.

The 20 million or so "left out" is largely comprised of illegal aliens. If passed, this should reach most of the US legal population, but not all, some will be left out. Far less than are left out now, ya gotta start somewhere!

The actual cost is a much more troubling calculation, but at least there are provisions to address it. Taxes, cut's, etc. Better than it all going straight to the deficit with no hope of paying for it at all.

Of course the expected savings and collectible taxes are largely a "best guess" when you carry it out to 10 years or so. Two or three years maybe, but 10? Heck that far out has about the same odd's as rolling dice in Vegas. Maybe we'll get lucky?

Of the remaining 24 million people under age 65 left uninsured, about one-third would be illegal immigrants.


You need to go to a doctor and get your eyes examined.

Well your right about my eyes, by the way, aint what they used to be. But I was just responding to your comment,
, clairifying (again) that many of those would be illegals.

Actually, I can understand why there was some debate to include illegals, by the way. It's such a hot potato politically that part of the debate died a very early death. BUT, allowing illegals to purchase, with their own money, no Federal funds of any kind (tax breaks or whatever) would reduce the load on emergency rooms. Plus, Mexico allows USA citizens to buy into Mexico's National Health Care system as well.

One of my big concerns about the health care bills is if they actually do provide an insurance that a poor person can afford, then our over crowded emergency rooms will be a night mare as every person who needs a band aid will be running in. They have had two investigations into the hospitals here in the past year because of the slowness of treatment in the Emergency rooms and can't come up with any solution as they always have people standing outside because they are so crowded. About the only thing the investigations did was to say that they are overcrowded and don't have enough doctors. Also that they need to treat the serious injured before the ones with less severe injuries no matter if they just got there and the others have been there for hours. One woman died in the emergency room at RMC a couple of years ago and the investigation determined that they were taking patients in the order they came in, with insured getting preference. That hospital has been closed 3 times and is now open again under new management.

Ron

And there's probably many other parts of your body that largely go along with that statement, and have significantly shrunk.

I see that you clarified it to yourself, not to me. "Largely", to me and most others implies a majority, different from "many".


You're right, that's the new craze. Healthcare in the US is so inferior, that US citizens are flocking by the millions to purchase Mexican healthcare because it is so much better.

Close, but let me clairify a couple of points with that. :) "Many", not millions, are indeed relocating to Mexico SPECIFICALLY to take advantage of the cheap cost of their National insurance program. Mexican doctors are well trained and provide quality service. Unlike the USA where many people cannot afford any insurance at all. Mexico offers an attractive alternative that provides a fairly wide range of service. If you don't like their National program, you can choose to go to a private hospital and get all the "Bells and Whistles" a LOT cheaper than you could here!

The House bill is a stinkin pile of crap, as is the Senate bill. Neither will reduce costs of medical care and neither will reduce the deficit. Anyone thinking otherwise is blind to Gov't programs over the last 50 plus years. They don't work as promised, they exceed projected costs by multiples, and they are next to impossible to remove or fix.


Covering those without insurance as referenced above,
Where does it say in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that there is a right to insurance coverage?

Helping those that need help, TEMPORARILY, is OK. Gov't. nannyism from the cradle to the grave is just blatantly stupid. And temporary help should be the bailiwick of churches and charities with minimum Gov't. support.

The Republican idea of tort reform does more to address the cost problem than all 4000 pages House and Senate doublespeak. HOWEVER, actually DOING tort reform would likely involve about 50 years of litigation by the trail lawyers fighting to keep the gravy train on track.

Another idea seemingly with merit is open competition of insurance companies across state lines. Does it have merit? Not sure. Am sure that STATES RIGHTS allow for the regulation of insurance within their state. And regulate they do, totally and completely. Could be another 50 years of court battles between the Feds. and the States on that issue.

This whole issue was supposed to be about health CARE, not insurance coverage.

The insurance issue seems simple. Those too poor to buy insurance get covered by an expanded Medicaid. Those that can afford to buy insurance and don't should be singularly responsible for the consequences of their own decisions..
But there is no possible tongue twisting lie that could convince anyone that an expanded Medicaid would save money and reduce the deficit.

...broken record, now when was the last time we heard that lame argument? :)

TRUTH is never lame.

And I did suggest a way to cover the worthless using an existing program [Medicaid] where we have already identified its failings and we can fix them over time or live with them. Much better than venturing into a political self serving unknown CERTAIN to cost unimaginable TRILLIONS.

Medicaid expansion? If you think that will address the millions without health insurance you don't have a clue what the problem is.

Where does it say millions without insurance must be addressed? WHERE US THIS RIGHT WRITTEN?


Next do we do dental insurance? Then life insurance? Then accident insurance? Then universal liability insurance? Travel insurance for all? Homeowners insurance for the homeless?
The liberals basic premiss that all have a right to ANY KIND of insurance coverage is blantenly and obviously WRONG!


Does everyone have a RIGHT to a house? We see how that worked out.

It is written right right here, by me, read it and weep:

The Federal Government WILL be addressing the problem of millions of Americans without insurance for health care. You can question it, you can disapprove of it, you can call it unconstitutional, but it's GOING to happen and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

The remaining questions are many, but, "Where does it say millions without insurance must be addressed?", is NOT one of them! That issue has been resolved, it WILL be addressed, it IS being addressed, it's over, it's going down, it will be voted on soon, the question is kaput, done, finished.

What remains are relavant questions. How will it be done? How will it be paid for? Who will be covered? How will they pay for it? How can we stop it from passing? How can we make sure it DOES pass? What can we do to "throw the bums out" if it does or doesn't? And a million other questions...

The answers are for the most part already known.

By the government as usual passing multiple new layers of bureaucratic crap, I mean legislation.

\
You have to be kidding me. Obviously the taxpayers of the US. No matter who is taxed, fined, penalized, pays higher premiums, etc., the bottom line is the money will ultimately come from the taxpayers.

Obviously the "unfortunate" people who don't have the "ability" to pay for their own premium.

See 2 above this.

The first real question.

The same real question.

Hmmmm. Maybe don't vote them in again?

Details that probably really won't affect the bottom line of the country as a whole.

How will it be paid for? "Tax payers", to broad, evades the question.

Some 20 million, "many" of whom are illegal aliens, will not be covered. Who are those folks and why won't they be covered?

"Throw the bum's out" isn't really a viable solution, more bum's will be voted in! :)

Now there is a truly evaded question!

Decisions are made by the second, minute, hour, day, month, year, era. MANY are wrong, this is one of the wrong ones.