Hold the Hyperbole on the Senate Health Bill

Hold the champagne.
And don’t get rolled over by the hyperbole.
The Senate health care bill, which just passed 60-39, is nothing to cheer about.
It will do “more harm than good,” say the leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program.
They acknowledge “the salutary provisions included in the legislation, notably an expansion of Medicaid coverage, increased funds for community clinics, and regulations to curtail some of private insurers’ most egregious practices,” write Dr. Oliver Fein, Dr. David Himmelstein, and Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.
But these are outweighed, they say, by the bill’s killer flaws.
The individual mandate “would reinforce private insurers’ stranglehold on care” by forcing millions of people to buy insurance on the private market. “Those who dislike their current employer-sponsored coverage would be forced to keep it,” they write. “Those without insurance would be forced to pay private insurers’ inflated premiums, often for coverage so skimpy that serious illness would bankrupt them.”
The individual mandate, by the way, was the top priority of the private insurance lobby.
The leaders of the single-payer organization cite four other problems with the bill.
One: “The bill’s anti-abortion provisions would restrict reproductive choice, compromising the health of women and adolescent girls.”
Two: “The new 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans—deceptively labeled a ‘Cadillac tax’—would hit many middle-income families.”
Three: “The bill would drain $43 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the 23 million who will remain uninsured even if the bill works as planned.”
And four: “The bill would leave hundreds of millions of Americans with inadequate insurance. . . . Predictably, as health care costs continue to grow, more families will face co-payments and deductibles so high that they preclude adequate access to care.”
This last point puts the lie to the claim that the bill will cover 26 million more Americans. Actually, it will force most of those 26 million either to buy private insurance or pay a fine of $750 a person or $2,250 a family by the year 2016. Millions of people will likely to choose to pay that fine rather than pay the premiums, co-pays, and deductibles that can reach four, five, or six times the fine.
National Nurses United, the newly formed union of 150,000 nurses, also opposes the bill.
It points out that the much-heralded prohibition on not covering people with preexisting conditions is far less than meets the eye.
For instance, “insurers can charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees. So the insurance companies might not have a policy of not covering preexisting conditions, but they would have a practice of doing it.
Also, check this out: “Insurers may continue to rescind policies for ‘fraud or intentional misrepresentation’—the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage,” notes the nurses’ union.
Much of the bill is a straight up handout to the private insurance companies.
Remember the Medicare buy in proposal for people between the ages of 55 and 65? Well, that’s gone from the bill, and in its place, the government will pay employers and the insurance companies for covering the part of this cohort that is retired. The program “will reimburse employers or insurers for 80 percent of retiree claims between $15,000 and $90,000,” the bill says, according to an excellent breakdown by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Gone, too, of course, is any public option.
“Sadly, we have ended up with legislation that fails to meet the true test of health care reform, guaranteeing high quality, cost-effective care for all Americans,” said Karen Higgins, co-president of National Nurses United. Instead, she added, we are “further locking into place a system that entrenches the chokehold of the profit-making insurance giants on our health.”
No wonder the stocks of those giants are soaring.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead
|
Resist Censorship in Tucson
- Banned in Tucson
- An Interview with Carlos Muñoz on the Tucson Book Ban
| Banned Authors Respond | |
CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012
Inside the Occupy Movement
Arun Gupta and Michelle Fawcett | We visited nearly thirty occupations in twenty states in two months.
What I got at Occupy Wall Street
Breanna Lembitz | I spent seven weeks in Zuccotti Park, and here is what I got.
Danny Glover
Ed Rampell | The Progressive Interview | March 2012 issue
To Wed or Not to Wed
Stephanie Fairyington | March 2012 issue
Progressive Matt
The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House
Ruth Conniff at the People's Legislature in Madison
Standing for Justice at the Capitol. Matthew Rothschild.
Come to Progressive Talks and Events
Feb. 18, 5:30 p.m.
Ruth Conniff, Progressive Principles Conference at Yale University 11-1
Read more >>
Thursday February 16 at 7:30 p.m.
VandeBurg Room, Pyle Center. Madison, WI
Not Just Gandhi: The Tradition of Nonviolence Among Muslims in South Asia
Amitabh Pal Managing Editor, The Progressive magazine.
Read more >>
Friday February 17 at 7:30 p.m. Kate Clinton at the Barrymore with Michael Feldman in Madison.
Thursday February 23 at 3:30 p.m.
Garden Key Room, Student Union, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
Islam Means Peace: Understanding the Muslim Principle of Nonviolence Today
Amitabh Pal Managing Editor, The Progressive magazine.
Read more >>








Comments
JimBo, why do you go on living?
Seriously, you come off as one big puddle of cynicism.
Is there ANYTHING you truly believe in, or do you live your life like the coyote in the roadrunner cartoon: A huge rock is falling off the cliff above you, and you just sit there and open up a tiny umbrella?
Can you not accept that there are any good ideas out there?
Of course, the natural tendency of anyone in business is to find a niche and avoid competition. But competition is inevitable, and it ultimately benefits the consumer, unless the government somehow gives one side or another an unnatural advantage.
Note I didn't say, "unfair" advantage. The term is subjective.
Yes, sometimes government has given business the unnatural advantage, sometimes to labor; usually government ends up screwing both. Both parties are guilty, and you can't blame either businesses or labor to take advantage of legislation that screws their opponents. Of course, to ME and several others here, the liberals/progressives screw everyone the hardest, but I digress.
You keep disagreeing with everyone's assessment, but never say what it is, or what your own would be, other than whine, open up your little umbrella, and say, "we're screwed."
I say make things freer. Free the labor market (enact laws to make it easier to organize unions while making it easier to opt out). Yes, Big Business AND Big Labor will whine, but ultimately eveyone wins. Free the health industry, stop all the regulations that prevent competition and drive up prices.
For G_d's sake, man, put away the umbrella, MOVE OUT OF THE WAY OF THE FALLING BOULDER, and get behind some freedom-based solutions. You're starting to sound like Matt, for crying out loud.