On Sunday night, as many of us know, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the health care bill by a vote of 219-212.
All House Republicans voted against the bill, as did 34 Democrats, including Blacksburg’s representative, Rep. Rick Boucher.
The passing of this bill into law enacted the most sweeping health care reform in the past 40 years, and every Democrat president has attempted something like it since President Harry Truman in the 1940s and 1950s.
This bill is expected to extend medical coverage to 32 million Americans who are not currently covered by any plan, public or private, and its estimated cost is $940 billion.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has also predicted that the bill will lower the national debt by $100 billion in the next decade
and $1 trillion in the decade after that.
However, we have been hearing quite a bit about this bill and its contents ever since President Barack Obama started his health care reform platform in 2007.
Yet, I know I’ve been following it and I still am confused about its contents. Here are some major points and important details.
The first thing to remember is that this bill does not contain the public option.
There is no government run insurance plan, as was suggested earlier in the process.
Instead, there are reforms, extensions to programs and limits put on insurance companies designed to better and more fairly cover a greater number of Americans.
No one is going to be forced to buy government insurance, just insurance in general, either public or private.
So calling this bill socialist or communist would be a mistake, because there is nothing government-run that was not already there, and those who do so are merely demonstrating that they do not know or understand what it means to be socialist or communist.
However, most Americans will now be required to have health insurance or pay a fine that won’t take effect until 2016. This fine would be either $695 or 2.5 percent of one’s income, depending on whichever number is bigger. Remember, that’s almost six years to get insured.
This is combined with limits on the insurance plans of large companies, help to small businesses to insure their employees and subsidies for families in certain income brackets (families of four who make $88,000 or less).
Another important detail to remember is that it is now illegal for insurance companies to deny insurance coverage to anyone based on a preexisting condition.
This has been very prevalent recently as many preexisting conditions are expensive to cover.
This has caused astronomical medical debt for people whose coverage was dropped.
They are also not allowed to drop coverage if someone is sick and total out-of-pocket costs for those insured are supposed to decrease.
Additionally, and probably most importantly for college students, coverage is now expanded for non-dependent children through the age of 26.
This means that even if you live on your own, or you are not in school, you can still be covered on your parent’s insurance plan until you turn 27.
A version of this article appeared in the Mar 23 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 32 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
This isn't just about the brave new world of U.S. health care, it's about the politics used to pass this bill. This is the biggest bill since Social sceurity and the congress didn't even vote on it! The American people didn't want it and Nancy couldn't get enough congressmen and congresswomen to vote for it but yet it is now law. Weather your for this bill or not, 200 years of democratic rule just went out the window and our polictical system is changed for ever.
Reply to this Top
How can you ask one to examine health care reform before passing judgment from your article when you have a clearly biased article? Choice is good in some things but not others. If I choose that I would like health care I will get a plan. If I do not want nor need one why should I be forced to get one? I always find it funny how some people are so "pro-choice" on some issues but so naive about others.
Reply to this Top
They say no man is an island. What you do not understand is that you not having insurance does negatively affect other people. For instance, if you are in a car accident and unconsciously taken to a hospital, the doctors will do lots of work to save your life. After the expensive surgery, the hospital will find out you can't pay the bill so they will raise the cost on others with insurance. If everyone has insurance then everyone gets a fair deal.
Top
Actually Curt, nearly every part of that statement is fundamentally wrong, although I blame poor messaging from our leaders and a media who love conflict for your mistakes. To start with, Democrats decided to not use the so called "deem and pass" procedure that drew so much flak. The vote proceeded in a very standard fashion and ended with a total of 219 for and 212 against. Here's the roll call from the House clerk http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml
Reply to this Top
Next, there were in fact two votes before this on passage of a healthcare reform bill. First, back in November, the House passed a more expansive, and in my opinion better, bill with similar numbers. Later after much debate and revision the Senate passed this exact bill 60-40, breaking a Republican filibuster, it was sent to the House leading to Sunday's vote. My next point is on the "deem and pass" method itself...
Top
Even if this procedural tool was used, there would really be nothing much to say about it. It is a common tool, that essentially reduces the number of procedural votes on a bill. Instead of holding separate votes on the rule (dictating debate time and methods) and the final bill, the House simply would have held one vote on the rule that included the final bill. The method is constitutional and fairly common, Republicans used it as well...
Top
I support the decision to pass the bill through normal order, but if they had gone with the original plan, it would have made little difference.
On to reconciliation. Much has been said, a lot of it false, about this budgetary process. It does not eliminate the filibuster as a tool of the minority, it simply prescribes certain provisions that can be passed without traditional hurdles. Budget reconciliation allows for provisions designed to reduce the deficit to pass without the threat of a filibuster...
Top
Your next point seems to be the talking point that most Americans are against this bill. That is not completely wrong on its face, polling does show majorities between 50 and 60% opposed. Setting aside the obvious problems associated with issue polling, there are still some points that need addressing. First, polls that dig deeper find that a significant number oppose the legislation from the left, advocating for a public option or single payer instead...
Top
If you add in those numbers to the supporters, it comes out to a majority. The other major problem is that whenever people are asked about individual provisions of the legislation, there is generally high support, so much of the opposition comes from lack of knowledge of what the bills actually contain...
Top
So to summarize, the bill was voted on through normal order, Nancy Pelosi did get the votes (bless her) and the polling is less than conclusive on what the American people want. Thanks for reading and I hope you learned something. Sorry I had so many comments, but I needed to say a lot.
Top
You're miss informed.
Reply to this Top
I just want to state that this is a very biased article. She needs to get her facts right. They did back door deals to get this passed. It is an unconstitutional bill. I should not be forced to purchase health care. I really do enjoy how liberal this article is. It is just like a liberal to claim that they are non-partisan.
Reply to this Top
You are required to have auto insurance if you drive. You are required to have homeowners insurance if you have a mortgage. You are now required to have health insurance if you are an adult member of this society. Big deal.
Reply to this Top
I can choose to not have a mortgage and have no homeowners insurance. I can choose to not drive and have no car insurance.
Top
Can you choose not to get sick or injured and rack up health care bills?
Top
I can choose not to seek traditional methods of treatment for when I do get sick or injured. Not everyone goes to the doctor. Many people prefer alternative forms of medicine and treatment. Some people go their entire lives without any sort of major or minor injury, illness, or disease.
Top
The reason that you need car insurance is to protect others when there is an accident. The government should not be able to tell me that I must have insurance. I am ultimately in charge of my own health. And yes this article is extremely biased.
Top
The reason to have health insurance is to protect paying customers of hospitals against people who go there for treatment and can't pay.
The article is just a list of what is actually in the bill, and nobody has pointed out any incorrect facts yet. What about it do you see as biased?
Top
It is a 'priveledge' not a 'right' to drive a vehicle, or own a home, therefore mandatory insurance. It is a right and a priveledge to live. States that don't believe this bill is good for it's people, should also repeal their mandatory car and home insurance regulations.
Top
What facts did she get wrong? The only thing I found is that the "deficit" will be reduced by $100 billion in the next decade, and not the "debt" as she stated.
Reply to this Top
It's quite constitutional. Look in Article I, Section 8. The General Welfare is invoked in both the Preamble and the Taxing and Spending clause.
Legal scholars have been debunking 10ther claims for months now.
Top
Good news....the U.S. will be bankrupt in about 10 years which will repeal this monstrosity.
Bad news....until then, the quality of health care is going to suffer and there will be shortages and long waits to look forward to.
The Federal Gov't is too involved with health care to begin with, limiting competition which raises prices. Now they are giving more business to large insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies who bought off the politicians to pass the bill.
Reply to this Top
"Now they are giving more business to large insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies who bought off the politicians to pass the bill."
They're also going to start taxing those same pharmaceutical and insurance companies based on market share to help pay for the bill.
Reply to this Top
I have your health care reform right here, its called exercise, eating healthy, and not smoking. Each year over 1 million Americans die from heart disease and lung cancer combined. I can only imagine how many others are being treated for these conditions along with diabetes, also weight related. People need to start taking responsibility for them selves and accepting the consequences of their actions.
Reply to this Top
I see you're back and posting again. Ultimately though your health care proposal is naive and unrealistic. You can't expect to solve the problem of rising treatment costs by telling people to do some sit ups.
Reply to this Top
I have many issues with this bill, but the biggest concern I have is how we are going to fund it. The idea that it will reduce the deficit is a joke. Read this for details: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html?bl
Reply to this Top
Summary:
The accounting for the first 10 years is pretty muddy because of how the programs are ramped up. Taxes are increased 4 years before the real spending begins, but this doesn't explain the $1 trillion deficit reduction expected by the CBO in the following 10 years.
The author also believes that reducing Medicare spending by $463 billion can't be done.
Reply to this Top
JUDGMENT!!! If you're going to use the word, freaking learn how to spell it!!!
Reply to this Top
This is not health care reform it is health insurance reform. The big problem is that Democrats openly state that they believe insurance should cover basic health care needs. That is ridiculous. Insurance is designed to cover catastrophic events. America needs to get over this idea that it should only cost a $20 co-pay for a doctor visit.
Reply to this Top
United States Post Office: 7.5 Billion dollars in the red this year.
Social Security: Bankrupt in 10 years, Billions and Billions in the hole.
Medicaid and Medicare: going broke, hopelessly outdated, billions lost due to fraud.
I.R.S: a bloody mess, 1,400 pages of unreadable tax law.
Veteran’s Affairs: lousy hospitals, underfunded.
United States Military: Grossly under paid.
Public Education: poorest in math and science compared to other industrialized nations.
F.H.A, Fannie Mae, broken billions in the hole and rampant with fraud.
So for all you people who think this is a good bill, what makes you think the idiot government will get it right this time?????
This bill was passed only because of the massive bribes with your (only if you pay taxes) money. Why you think government health care will improve anything for anybody is beyond me. Just look at Canada, they come HERE for serious procedures to be done because they are dying from being on a WAITING LIST. Grow up, Obama is not your savior, the government cannot and will not help you. Read the clause that exempts CONGRESS and the PRESIDENT from participating in the program they are ramming down our throats. Grow up, there is NO FREE RIDE.
Reply to this Top
Canada does not have a "waiting list". Get your facts straight and stop believing fear talk from those opposed to a universal health plan in your country.
Reply to this Top
Labour Art,hide additional also retain there much many egg long health detail respect support as alright stone happen surely distance from division role urban across none watch forest solicitor noise lay dress bright concern aware notice necessarily foundation option figure requirement afford remind grow officer hurt next hard farm press you study bad technical local every capacity unit rapidly heart effect full like mechanism far derive insurance theory entitle dangerous white allow steal wall effectively staff committee happy wall length but other since beneath down theory spring farm test criticism
Reply to this Top