What Does Health Care Reform Mean For You?
The debate over health care reform has devolved into scaremongering with death panels and rationed care. What's really going on, and what does it really mean for you and your family? Inside, the New York Times breaks down the competing bills...
For the moment, here's where things stand:
Your Doctor: The Senate plan gives you the "option to retain current insurance coverage." That includes your doctor. Everything stays the same for you so long as your insurer doesn't much around with their current offerings. The House bill would set standards for "acceptable health care coverage" and "essential benefits."
Socialized Medicine? Nope! All the current reform bills preserve the private sector's role in health care. A so-called "public option" would only crowd out private insurers if it offered superior benefits at a cheaper cost than the competition. Clearly that won't happen since all Americans love their private health insurer. The details wouldn't be known for some time, and the Congressional Budget Office predicts that only 11 million people would sign up for a public plan. Besides, the government already accounts for more than a third of total healthcare spending thanks to a little program called Medicare.
Your Insurer: Any reform bill would ban insurers from denying coverage or charging more for pre-existing conditions. The insurers realize this, and are pouring all their political capital into defeating a public option.
Cost: Yeeaaahhh... this one's a toughie. Health care reform is needed because without it, health care spending will bankrupt the nation. And you thought wars were expensive! The Congressional Budget Office worries that the bills under consideration could cost up to $1 trillion. For the moment, the House bill clocks in costing $239 billion over 10 years, and that's mostly to avoid scheduled Medicare pay cuts for doctors. Why so expensive? "Health costs are rising faster than the rate of inflation and proposed new taxes would not keep up." Any bill will be expensive, not because we're throwing money at the problem, but because health care doesn't get cheaper. The goal is to level off the costs before they skyrocket the nation into bankruptcy.
DEATH PANELS! They're as real as unicorns and dragons, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The kerfuffle stems from a provision in the House bill that lets Medicare pay for optional consultations with doctors who provide "end-of-life services" like euthanasia hospice care. See, not so scary.
The Future Of Medicare: The competing reform bills are expensive and Congress wants to save money by reducing Medicare spending. The President insists that this means eliminating wasteful spending like "duplicative tests ordered by different doctors for the same patient."
There are several draft reform bills flying around, and none of them are anywhere near final. The Senate Finance Committee still needs to weigh in, and the real fun won't happen until the competing bills turn down the lights and do the reconciliation dance in a conference committee.
A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform [The New York Times]
Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress
(Photo: ninjapoodles)
Post a comment
Comments:
so are we falling into Universal Healthcare or not?
and are we still Capitalism or are we going the way of Socialism and Communism?
I'm confused. Fox News and my local representatives taught me that the new bills enforce firing squads for anyone over 65 and that we have to change the national anthem to the former USSR's one.
I don't see either of these issues being addressed, Consumerist.
@Jage: You may not be the only one, but you must be a right-wing zealot who should not be allowed to question our government.
Go to work, pay your taxes, and shut the hell up!
"The House bill would set standards for 'acceptable health care coverage' and 'essential benefits'."
So it's not socialism. The government will just have the ability to tell you what coverage is and isn't appropriate.
You also forgot the part where they make us line up for healthcare and then take away our guns.
I'm still waiting to see what happens with this. I don't qualify to purchase private health insurance because of pre-existing conditions.
I'm wondering if I will also not qualify for this new healthcare thing because my husband is a Perminant Resident Alien. We signed papers saying that he would not accept government help for 10 years or 40 working quarters.
I haven't seen anyone mention whether or not legal immigrants will be eligible. (They may not know yet.)
@Jage: I actually see nothing wrong with your metaphor. What I see wrong with it is the metaphor.
This isn't a damned football game, this is healthcare.
@Jage: As long as the ref is playing by the same rules as everyone else, I don't see an issue. It's like USPS vs. FedEx vs. UPS for shipping.
The New York Times isn't exactly the most unbiased source for this.
This is more irresponsible spending and creation of yet more government (and all the costs associated with it).
How about this- give everyone the same coverage Congress has? It isn't like they are going to subject themselves to this destruction of the American medical system.
Ah,The New York Times the beacon of truth and light. They have no bias there, none at all.
@tmed: The same rules do not apply to the every business equally. For profit insurers are readily watching people die, and Medicare is crippling the finances of the country while the people working for miserable wages get neither insurance nor Medicare.
I couldn't care less if it is fair, the current system isn't fair.
TUCK TAIL!! Flaming arrows incoming. I will probably sit this one out. Got some pending work. If anyone wants to counter a particularly stupidly made point on either side of the aisle, feel free to use this image:
Or the one that GitEmSteveDave created, which I cannot seem to find right now.
@katieoh: Next thing you know they'll tell us we can't eat squirrels or go a-swimmin' in the swimmin' hole. I hates da gub'mint!
@Jage: See, Jage, the problem with your analogy is that healthcare is not a game. People going bankrupt due to medical expenses and then being unable to pull their lives out of the gutter are not a game. People getting sick, losing their job, and losing their health insurance is not a game.
I could see you having a point if we were giving, say, Blue Cross Blue Shield the ability to regulate the health insurance industry, but that's not what's happening here. The government already makes the rules and provides health care through Medicare. It's the government's job to make the rules and to promote the welfare of its citizens.
Our current health care system is an economic and social drain on the country, forcing businesses to be less competitive than those overseas due to rising health costs for their workers, making people who's only "fault" is that they've gotten sick into deadbeats who don't pay their bills, and generally causing a lot of unnecessary problems for Americans.
Will any of the above plans fix these problems? Hopefully. It's hard to say, as they keep changing (and will keep changing.) But without making some changes, the country will not be able to handle the effects of rising health care costs and an aging population.
@AppleAlex: I think we need to make a minor distinction. What the reforms seem to be focused on is Universal Insurance and not Universal Health Care.
Primary problems with current health care:
(1) If you have a pre-existing condition and aren't self-insured or covered by an employer pool, you're in a lot of trouble (i.e., uninsurable).
(2) EXPENSIVE (due in part to third party billing, rampant fraud, and malpractice suits - whether such be frivolous or meritorious).
People looking for a universal healthcare system that is sustainable should look at the German system, which is one of the oldest and most successful in the world. It operates a bit differently than most socialized medicine programs, with annual conventions held between the government, regional insurers (private non-profits and public funds), and the medical industry to mutually hash out budgets and care provisions on a regional basis. It primarily uses the government as a referee (not as a player) to guarantee all citizens with a baseline level of insurance while leaving others with the option to purchase expanded services from a private company. Copays have been mandated to protect available services from overutilization, which, as countries like Canada have discovered, results in rationing.
Still, the German system seems reliant on tort reforms that simply don't exist in the United States, as it forces doctors to operate under a budget that doesn't allow for a lot of CYA testing (i.e., tests for conditions that have an extremely remote chance of existing, but that still need to be tested for on the off-chance that failure to test could be deemed an act of malpractice).
There's no perfect solution to this, but Congress needs to go back to the drawing board for a more comprehensive (and cheaper) plan if this is ever going to work.
@katstermonster: "It's like USPS vs. FedEx vs. UPS for shipping."
Exactly. And first-class mail is more expensive than it needs to be because the US Government bans its competitors from that particular business. The biggest problem I have with the current proposals before Congress is that they will inevitably raise the cost of baseline health care. Federal regulation will make the health car exchange almost worthless because all of the plans will be required to have a certain base-line level of coverage.
While I despise the cries of "Socialism!" and "Death Panels!", there are certainly very big problems with the current legislation.
@Bluth_Cornballer: Your insurance company can't force you to accept their coverage. The government can.
@EBounding: Kind of like how they did when they stopped health care companies from discharging new mothers and infants in such short periods of time that they were having serious complications that could have been easily avoided by adhering to medically-indicated standards of care?
@Quill2006: "The government already makes the rules and provides health care through Medicare. It's the government's job to make the rules and to promote the welfare of its citizens."
Actually, it's the STATE governments who currently make the rules regarding health insurance. One could argue that federal regulation of an industry that is not involved in interstate commerce is unconstitutional.
@katstermonster: The USPS isn't subsidized by taxpayers though. Although they do have a government endorsed monopoly as far as letters go.
Healthcare reform will be subsidized by taxpayers thus allowing the government to offer artificially low premiums and extra benefits. Insurance companies don't have the ability to reach into everyone's pockets to fund their business. The government does.
Everyone who makes a snide little quip about the gov't controlling healthcare ("you want a bureaucrat choosing whether you get treatment?" etc.) should also forward an alternative. Make fun of the school system all you want, but look at little Billy in the trailer park; compare the education he gets now to the one he'd get if elementary school education was privatized.
Health care in this country is not working right now. I'm for universal care, and I'll pay higher taxes to get it, until someone shows me an alternative that gets everyone basic medical care. I think covering the basic medical needs of all Americans is patriotic. And NO, I'm not calling those who oppose UHC UNpatriotic.
@HiPwr: right wing zealot who should not be allowed to question our government? Who should be allowed to question our government? Oh yeah, everyone.
@takes_so_little: Oh, and DON'T tell me that tort reform will fix it, or even come close. Not unless you recently hit the pipe.
@EBounding: And if you read the article, you would have learned that the government isn't forcing you to accept their coverage; you still have the right to choose whatever private coverage you please. Feel free to explain why setting MINIMUMS of coverage and care is a bad thing...they're saying, "Hey, you can't treat a fetus as a pre-existing condition to deny a pregnant mother care!" They're not saying, "Hey, you want to cover cancer treatment? No, we're really not feeling that."
@MostlyHarmless: Gah, it's already started. I'm going to stop reading the comments on this page...it's just not worth the energy.
@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!:
No, illegal immigrants will not be eligible, just like illegals immigrants are also not eligible for Medicare, etc.
Carey, this article reads a lot more like a sales job than an unbiased look at the proposed plan. I love Consumerist, but if you start shilling for this misguided government plan, you're going to lose credibility and readers.
For example, here's a point that's very misleading:
All the current reform bills preserve the private sector's role in health care. A so-called "public option" would only crowd out private insurers if it offered superior benefits at a cheaper cost than the competition.
No they don't. There's a lot of discussion indicating the plans prevent private insurers from writing new plans, and I haven't seen any proof to the contrary. That means if you switch jobs, or your coverage lapses, you're stuck on the public plan forever.
A so-called "public option" would only crowd out private insurers if it offered superior benefits at a cheaper cost than the competition.Pure fantasy. A "public option" would be subsidized by taxpayers, meaning it never has to turn a profit. That puts a public plan at an unfair competitive advantage to private insurers who have to actually make a profit to stay in business and pay their employees.
Ultimately, the unfair competition of the public plans would drive private insurers out of business...then what?
Think the Gov will run this well? Look at how then run healthcare for Vets.
Ok, I'll take the bait.
"There are several draft reform bills flying around, and none of them are anywhere near final. The Senate Finance Committee still needs to weigh in, and the real fun won't happen until the competing bills turn down the lights and do the reconciliation dance in a conference committee."
So with your last paragraph you're saying that none of what you've just explained above actually matters, because everything that's in - or isn't in - the bill in its current state(s) can be changed.
"Socialized Medicine? Nope! All the current reform bills preserve the private sector's role in health care. A so-called "public option" would only crowd out private insurers if it offered superior benefits at a cheaper cost than the competition."
Does the writer really fail to see that a government-funded and controlled healthcare system that doesn't need to operate at a profit will inevitably "crowd out" any for-profit private insurance provider?
"The details wouldn't be known for some time, and the Congressional Budget Office predicts that only 11 million people would sign up for a public plan."
So we're being told that this healthcare reform will provide health coverage for all Americans. But only 11 million people will sign up for the public plan? So where does that leave the rest of the supposedly 46 million Americans without healthcare?
Right now faceless corporations control your health care- they decide if you have a pre-existing condition, they decide to treat or not to treat you, and because of the pre-existing condition clause, its not like you can switch coverage mid-stream if you don't like, say, your cancer coverage. In other words- the market is not going to be able to solve this problem by itself.
And again I ask-- what's the difference between the govt (which you elect) and corporations making the rules on healthcare?
@MostlyHarmless: This deserves flaming arrows. The bias and carefully tailored presentation of the information exposes this shill job.
@HiPwr: Truely one of the top 10 dumbest comments made on here. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't have a right to express their own opinions. Did I type that slowly enough with small enough words so you can understand it?
This may seem like a simplistic question, but what is this "health insurance reform" going to do to fix having a $300 charge for a 5-minute EKG and 5 minutes of a cardiologist's time to read, and having to pay $180 even with insurance? Or a $3000 MRI, then having to pay $400 after insurance pays? Or how about a $40 co-pay to see a specialist? Even after paying $200+ in premiums biweekly, there are still WAY too many out of pocket costs after insurance pays. It's not just *our* insurance provider (which is crappy though), every health care provider charges exorbitant fees for simple tasks. Where is the reform here?
And another thing, what are they going to do to fix the "donut hole" for seniors who paid into the system their entire lives and for a period of time each year have to pay full price for their medication? That's not fair!
@AppleAlex: I swear, 80% of people who decry Socialism and Communism actually have ZERO idea what either of those systems is.
I doubt the new plans and reforms will end up costing me less, but I would like to see some changes that would benefit me, for instance, access to ALL drs and facilities. The network in my current plan is lame.
@takes_so_little: Exactly. Forget bureaucrats, how about the cronies who get paid bonuses to deny my healthcare under any loophole possible? I REALLY don't want them choosing my treatment! Oh wait, they already do!
@JGKojak: But her husband is a LEGAL immigrant. He is going about being in this country the legitimate way. Personally, I think legal immigrants should be eligible but they don't want me in charge.
And I feel your pain about the preexisisting condition thing. I have three.
@thelushie: Someone's sarcasm detector is broken. I thought those were included standard with the stars.
![[www.satyamnayak.com]](http://www.satyamnayak.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/orly.png){kind=link}
So, the person who makes the rules and oversees things has an option competing with everyone else?
That's like the referee having bets on a team they own, in a game they're refereeing!
Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this?