SubscribeBaucus's bill will not contain an employer mandate -- a requirement that employers provide health insurance to their employees -- even though it does contain an individual mandate.
Does this look familiar to anyone?
-- No employer mandate
-- No public option
-- But yes, an individual mandate
It should -- because this particular permutation on health care reform looks an awful lot like the incomplete draft of the HELP Committee's bill that the CBO scored last month, which also lacked an employer mandate and a public option but contained an individual mandate. That bill, the CBO estimated, would cost about $1.0 trillion -- but would only cover a net of about 16 million people. In contrast, the revised version of the HELP Committee's bill, which did include both a public option and an employer mandate, would cost about the same amount but cover a net of 37 million people.
[...]
The AP may be right that Baucus's bill will cost less than $1 trillion, but it accomplishes that by shifting the burden to middle-income families, some of whom have poor balance sheets and will face a really tough choice between paying for health insurance they can't quite afford and facing some kind of penalty. Odds are that many of them will take the penalty, which is why coverage probably won't expand very much. Or, the enforcement mechanisms could be more stringent, in which case they'll have to buy health care, at the cost of reducing their spending in other areas -- and in probably being very teed off at the Democrats who passed the bill.
[...]
Just to underscore this point: when it scored a similar bill, the CBO estimated that 15 million people would lose their employer-provided coverage. Most of these people are likely to be lower-to-middle income persons with somewhat tenuous employment situations, a group that tends classically to be swing voters.
Now, how are those 15 million people going to feel about health care reform when they find out that:
a) Although the bill was supposed to guarantee access to health insurance, they've in fact lost theirs;
b) They're required to buy an expensive, private plan on their own, or to pay a fine;
c) They're probably not getting any government assistance;
d) They certainly don't have any Medicare-like alternative to fall back upon;
e) All of this cost the country about $1 trillion dollars.
You think those 15 million people are going to vote for the Democrats again, like, ever?
Ethical "end of life counseling" is hospice care. When my dad became terminally ill, his normal GP dropped him. He was referred to a doctor who cared for terminally ill patients.
My father broke down crying when he talked with his new doctor. It was the first time anyone directly addressed his fears. As a result, dad was put on strong painkillers that allowed him to finally sleep through the night; to eat regular food again; to have some respite from the pain.
He was tended to by a hospice nurse at home. She was able to look after him while my mother wrestled with the situation. She fed him, made him comfortable and kept him clean and free from bed sores. That is end of life care means from a family who’s dealt with it.
Regardless of what else might be said about this bill, support for end-of-life counseling is a moral and just imperative. I ask you to please reasses your opinion based on my story.
« Older Sunshine Again is a lo-fi/DIY public Access re-ima... | Legends from New Zealand held ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Auden at 12:46 PM on September 16, 2009 [2 favorites]