This site is no longer active!

Click here to visit Health Care for America Now's new website to find this content and newer material.

The NOW! Blog

The House Stands Up For Americans!

Posted on June 19th, 2009 by Jason Rosenbaum in Solutions that Work

The three committees in the House with jurisdiction over health reform - Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor - have together released a draft of their health reform legislation [pdf].

It's excellent.

It's got a strong public health insurance option, available everywhere on day one. It's got affordability provisions up to 400% of the poverty level, and caps on out-of-pocket expenses. There would be no deductibles or co-pays for preventative care. And no denying care or increasing prices for pre-existing conditions. Everyone would share responsibility for health care costs. And it would put doctors, not insurance companies, squarely in charge of health decisions.

It adds up to a bill that works. It preserves choice, so people can choose the plans and doctors that work for them. It controls costs, by establishing a strong public health insurance option to compete with private insurers and a capping personal expenses so they don't break the bank. And it extends coverage by putting insurance in reach of everyone as well as asking employers to share in the responsibility of paying for care.

As our National Campaign Manager, Richard Kirsch, said:

The House bill is resounding evidence that we can achieve the President’s goal of quality, affordable health care for all this year, and it can be done right. It’s absolutely possible.

For those who say it’s too hard, too complicated, too expensive, this bill is proof positive that we can do this in America.

That's exactly right. When you put together a good health care bill, the pieces work together, and it delivers. This is what you get when you listen to the American people, instead of vainly groping for compromises and half-measures.

The guantlet has been thrown down.

13 Responses to “The House Stands Up For Americans!”

Mary O'Brian says:

I think this is excellent. Finally the government by the people
for the people have got the message "We need affordable health care"

With respect to the price tag. I highly doubt it will cost
1 trillion as indicated in earlier reports. Since the government will offer a public plan it does not mean that the government is paying out alot of money all the time.

For example the vast majority of the population is in good health. For the healthy no cost is really incurred as your
average citizen will not be using medical care all the time.
It is only when you visit a doctor or need surgery will an actual cost be incurred.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think
any member of congress that does not endorse a public national
health plan for the tax payers of this country simply has his or her interests else-where !

Thank You Mary

I agree Mary, the public option doesn't cost much, it's the subsidies where the cost comes in, and those have nothing to do with the public option. In fact, the public option is the only thing that will slow costs in the long run.

 
 
jim mankowski says:

We need this bill to include the public option although I feel a singlr payer plan is the best and most efficent choice .
Why not consider private carriers to administer such a plan ?

 

One hurdle down … a thousand more to go. This is very encouraging but the gauntlet will not go unchallenged. Thank you for leading the fight!! We have to find ways to make our voices heard.

 
Andrea Boydstun says:

Good Start! And forget bipartisanship! The truly life changing legislation that's been passed in this country in the past has been achieved without bipartisanship. Sorry but the Democrats have a mandate for change and I'm dismayed and alarmed that the Democratic House and Senate with a Democratic President elected also with a mandate for change is floundering around (it seems to me) trying to be bipartisan on the health care issue. This along with the Republicans ratings down the tubes and the overwhelming support of the American people for Solid Public Health Care. It boggles the mind. If, with all this on our side, they cannot make this happen then they should resign their seats and let us get people in there with some teeth that can get the job done. It is literally now or never. Bulldoze the way through an Get it Done or get out of there. This is too important to play nicey nicey politics!

 
Joe Rager says:

Well said Andrea!
With over 60% of the American population favoring the inclusion of a public plan the failure of the House to pass a bill with its inclusion would surely prove our Democratic representatives get way too much campaign money from the health care industry!

 
Katey Starling says:

The biggest objection I have about this draft plan is that it still creates 2 tiers of care and coverage; one for those who can afford to pay and then another for the indigent, low and middle income. The limits for scalable assistance are ridiculous at $43k/$88k as I do not think these income levels are able to pay $500-$800 a month for premiums. And I am not naive enough to think reducing the premium by $100 a month will make that more managable. The cost savings are being over estimated in my opinion as an Employee Benefits Manager of 15 years.

Real reform would require all doctors to accept the second tier of patients and reform the payemnt methods to incentive the inclusion of citizens that cannot pay for care or premiums based on outcomes rather than fee for service. I note that the doctors reform is the major piece left out of all this reform talk and really is the other half of the cost equation.

I am in favor of reform but not continuing 2 systems that still say that your ability to pay premium and co-insurance dictate the doctor and hospitals available to you. this only relegates the poor to less choice and outcome.

Also, the small business provision is interesting but may be problematic as many very small businesses will go under to have to start paying penality or premiums. It is just not an option for most who are under the ERISA limit of 25 lives. For these folks, this additional cost will shut down the business. Are these closures being factored into any savings estimates? And are they legislators simply saying those are exceptable losses?

Overall, step in the right direction but the devil is in the details here.

 

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

E-mail (required - never shown publicly)

URL

Your Comment

Trackback responses to this post