that new health care bill

1. The individual mandate forcing all those without coverage to buy private insurance, with insufficient cost controls on skyrocketing premiums and other insurance costs.

2. No challenge to insurance company monopolies, especially in the top 94 metropolitan areas where one or two companies dominate, severely limiting choice and competition.

3. An affordability mirage. Congressional Budget Office estimates say a family of four with a household income of $54,000 would be expected to pay 17 percent of their income, $9,000, on healthcare exposing too many families to grave financial risk.

4. The excise tax on comprehensive insurance plans which will encourage employers to reduce benefits, shift more costs to employees, promote proliferation of high-deductible plans, and lead to more self-rationing of care and medical bankruptcies, especially as more plans are subject to the tax every year due to the lack of adequate price controls. A Towers-Perrin survey in September found 30 percent of employers said they would reduce employment if their health costs go up, 86 percent said they'd pass the higher costs to their employees.

5. Major loopholes in the insurance reforms that promise bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations for sickness. The loopholes include:

· Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail "wellness" programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.

· Insurers are permitted to sell policies "across state lines", exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.

· 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.

· Insurers may continue to rescind policies for "fraud or intentional misrepresentation" – the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.

6. Minimal oversight on insurance denials of care; a report by the California Nurses Association/NNOC in September found that six of California's largest insurers have rejected more than one-fifth of all claims since 2002.

7. Inadequate limits on drug prices, especially after Senate rejection of an amendment, to protect a White House deal with pharmaceutical giants, allowing pharmacies and wholesalers to import lower-cost drugs.

8. New burdens for our public safety net. With a shortage of primary care physicians and a continuing fiscal crisis at the state and local level, public hospitals and clinics will be a dumping ground for those the private system doesn't want.

9. Reduced reproductive rights for women.

10. No single standard of care. Our multi-tiered system remains with access to care still determined by ability to pay. Nothing changes in basic structure of the system; healthcare remains a privilege, not a right.

1) Lack of Real Cost Control

This bill does not create real cost control and will not bring down premiums for most Americans. Congress and state legislatures need to adopt real cost control measures like: drug re-importation, Medicare direct drug price negotiation, a public insurance option, Medicare buy-in, or a central provider reimbursement negotiator (all-payer system). These changes would save the government and regular Americans hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

The bill also needs to provide a better pathway for states to opt-out of this bill so they can experiment with better health care models that could truly bring down cost.

2) Dangerously Weak Enforcement

There are some good new regulations, but regulations are only as good as the strength of the agency tasked to enforce them. This bill is dangerously lacking in this area, leaving enforcement mainly up to the same state insurance commissioners that now often lack the will, funding, or power to hold the private insurance companies honest. Only a national exchange and a federal insurance commissioner would have the power to make sure the new regulations are more than over-hyped window dressing.

3) Individual Mandate

The individual mandate, which uses the IRS to force people to buy a product from a poorly regulated, private industry, is an affront to the American people. The policy is not needed, and must be corrected before it has a chance to go into effect. People must be offered the choice of a public alternative, or the individual mandate must be repealed. Alternatives like a back premium payment system could achieve a similar policy goal to an individual mandate without a massive expansion of the IRS or government coercion.

4) Abortion

This bill is a massive rollback of a woman’s right to choose. It would take away the abortion coverage of millions of Americans. The system of exchanges and affordability tax credits could easily be modified to ensure federal funds are not used to pay for abortions, while still not taking away the ability of women and small businesses to buy insurance packages that cover abortion. Having an individual mandate that forces women to buy insurance, but also a law that prevents them from getting insurance that covers a legal medical procedure, is a disgusting abuse of women’s rights.

5) Lack of Health Insurance Competition

The bill will do almost nothing to address the problem of lack of competition in the health insurance market. Repealing the anti-trust exemption and adding a public option would be two big steps toward solving the problem. Creating an all-payer system would make it easier for new insurers to enter new markets. Requiring a standardized insurance package, instead of a confusing set of choices based on actuarial value, would allow Americans to do real apples-to-apples comparison shopping. Finally, adding much stronger risk adjustment mechanisms would force insurance companies to compete on quality instead of on avoiding the sickest Americans.

6) Immigration

Under this almost-law, undocumented immigrants would not be allowed to buy insurance on the new exchanges, even if they are willing to pay the full cost of the insurance with their own money. This policy is not only cruel and immoral, but fiscally irresponsible. The more undocumented immigrants that pay for their own health care, the more taxpayers save by not being forced to pick up the cost of undocumented immigrants’ uncompensated care when they use the emergency rooms.

The White House and Democratic leaders have made many promises about health care reform throughout this long and winding process—from guaranteeing affordable, quality care for everyone to pledging tougher regulation of the medical industrial complex that created this broken system in the first place. If the majority party wants to honestly deliver on these promises—not to mention if they want to remain in the majority—then a concerted and immediate effort is required to prove that this week’s legislation is truly the first step toward reform, and not the last.

Nobody ever thinks that we as a species are cultivating a mentality of dependency on Government. If you can't afford a kid go ahead and do it anyways. What? You can't afford the feed the kid? Why not? Oh well, here have food stamps. Can't afford to feed the kid at school? Here have free lunch. What? Can't afford to take the little urchin to the doctor? Here have medicaid, wic or any of the plethora of programs. What? can't afford a house? Here have section 8. Why bother thinking about the consequences of your actions when the politicians will be there to gladly take money from everybody else just so they can buy your continued vote.

Don't get me wrong I want social programs to exist but, I don't think we should be handing our power and independence to the government hand over fist. We should be teaching people how to stand on their own two feet. Teach people how to be responsible and to set money aside for rainy days. Teaching them to depend on themselves, their family and friends rather than the government. Don't simply GIVE them a fish, teach them HOW to fish.

This is why I think this was a power grab for the idiot vote. They should have introduce consumer protection regulations, along with adding an increased competition between companies, then set up a market atmosphere where individuals have more power. Barring that idea, letting employees collectively buy policies instead of companies forking it over (cost of paying health care leads many people to be fired in order to reduce costs for the company. Health care costs for said companies are also passed down to the consumer).

On major suggestion I would have made is price transparency.
Here's an example.

Let say you walk into a big electronics store. Walk over to the man-juice pumping T.V. section. You tell an associate (who works on commission) to remove all the stickers and to not give you a receipt after purchase then you ask him to show you the best deal. You think he's going to be honest?

That is essentially how the American medical system's prices got so outrageous because everybody wasn't checking the prices. Simply writing a blank check the insurance companies would have to pay. In wake of this several websites have started listing doctors and clinics along the prices they charge for various treatments. If it's your own money, you can bet your ass that you'll look for the best deal/service based on your budget.

A fact that all Liberals and supporters of the bill try to bury is that government has actually caused a majority of the problems related to health care. What? The government has caused the suffering of it's own people? FPoD! You lie! Nope, due to regulations preventing competition and increase in new companies into the industry we are left with psuedo-monopolies. In many state you have a choice between big, bad, vile insurance company A and big, bad, vile insurance company B. With a lack of pressure from competition to drive prices down these two companies just have to find an equilibrium where they both benefit (considering the government will break a single monopoly up).

With a lack of consumer protections (which is what the government should have done in the first place) allowed these pseudo-monopolies to drop coverage for the ill and profit from it.

Another problem is



If any system is inferior it's the U.K's system which in my opinion borderlines on violations of human rights in such a way the U.N. should be considering sanctions.

Comparing the U.S. to the U.k. system, we have higher survivability rates. Better treatment times and we don't have government panels banning life saving drugs because "they cost too much" (I am well aware that they reversed this decision due to public outrage). I'm not familiar with the French, Germany or Eastern European system as nobody has ever bothered to even make a comparison. I speculate Liberals in America never brought it up because it'd probably just hurt their case. They lost a lot of ground when they started promoting a U.k. style single payer system.

As for Canadian system, they get what they pay for. I have heard grumblings about it's short comings but, no real hatred and no real support either. It doesn't look good for a system or a country when doctors defect to our "inferior" system. Personally, I don't want to have to wait several hours for a clinic visit.

Your least intelligent response gibs. I'm rather disappointed that you'd reply in the same manner as TMS would when he's losing an argument.

Every time somebody has a problem their solution is always government. Somebody loses their house, it's the governments responsibility to correct that. Somebody can't afford something, it's the governments responsibility to give it to them. This is why conservatives blast democrats over the nanny state. Nobody is capable of taking care of themselves and keep running to the government every time they get a paper cut.

There are only two people on Fakku that have ever offered private sector solutions to any issue with me being one of them. Instead of giving politicians, bureaucrats, or companies more power. How about we give it to THE PEOPLE.

Side note: Private sector includes everything that isn't Government. People, businesses, charities,etc

"Private sector" includes, you, me, Our neighbors, charities, non-profit organizations,etc. Private sector includes everything that is not government, not just companies. If I paid for you're health care out of my own pocket. That would be considered a "private sector solution" to your health care problem.