Well I have been reading DK today with all the reaction to the speech, the laudatory comments on the stunning rhetoric and the outrage over the idiot congressman who shouted out the ‘Liar’ comment. A whole lot of outrage has been focused on making Wilson resign or censuring him. A lot of sound and fury over something pretty trivial in the scope of issues we need to pay attention to.
I am one of the lucky ones; I am employed and I have health insurance. I am also committed to our country changing this system that (sorry Mr. President) does not work. We need to be vigilant to assure that these legislators don't turn out something too embarrassingly shoddy.
I agree the president gave a really good speech. He was clear, he was reasonable, he was forceful.
But.
I am still dismayed. He seemed to be saying we would have some improvements to the status quo. People with pre-existing conditions would have to be covered, people could not be rescinded from coverage because they had an outbreak of acne before being diagnosed with cancer. That’s all good. BUT...
What will it cost those people who are covered? There seems to be buy-in for forced purchasing of health insurance but no mention of cost containment of insurance premiums. The public option held some promise that it could indeed create pressure for the for-profit companies to offer coverage at reasonable prices, but this option seems positioned for the proverbial throwing under the bus.
Nowhere in this speech did I hear reference to regulating what these companies could charge people for coverage and what they would have to cover. If someone has a pre-existing condition, does that mean they get health insurance, but no coverage pertaining to that condition? Can the companies charge them thousands of dollars a month for the privilege of inadequate coverage?
I’ve heard a lot about this legislation needing to fund itself, but nothing about regulating the very industry that is now poised for a windfall of millions of dollars of health insurance premiums (or is it billions?). Some of these people will need ongoing medical care, but many will be able-bodied, young people who will likely need only routine care for many years. The mandate itself is a good idea because it spreads the actuarial risk among a wider population, thus making the business model work. However, without regulation and with a mandate, the insurance companies will continue to raise rates and deny claims. The public option is, as the president stated, a tool. Unfortunately, it was the only tool put on the table to address these dangers and now it seems destined to be thrown in the trash along with stronger proposals that would have truly re-imagined the way we deliver health care in this country.
People scream about Medicare-for-All being a way to strain an already overtaxed Medicare system, but I see that in an almost exactly opposite perspective. As it is now, only people 65 and older can enroll. This is the sickest of our population. Imagine how robust Medicare would be with several million young and middle-aged people enrolled? Why has no one put forth this argument?
I am still waiting for speeches that address the real, substantive concerns of ordinary people in this country and I am still depressed about the state of health care reform.