Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What kind of health care bill would be acceptable to you?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:33 PM
Original message
What kind of health care bill would be acceptable to you?
By acceptable, I mean a bill you could vote for if you were in the House or Senate - not necessarily your ideal bill. For me, it would be a bill with a strong public option (tied to Medicare rates and available to all). I don't like mandates, but I could vote for the bill if it has a strong public option. I would vote against a bill with a weak public option, though I'd have some hope the bill could be strengthened later if one was at least in.

I didn't do a poll form for this question because it's too complex for that. So, what kind of bill would be acceptable to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Pretty much any improvements without mandates are better than the status quo
But if you tie in mandates, it MUST have a public insurance policy available to all and subsidized (by employer or public) for all easily. The government has no business mandating insurance unless they can ensure, beyond a doubt, that responsible, efficient, comprehensible (read: public) insurance will be available and affordable for all. More than allowing everyone some tough loopholes they must navigate to get into a public option, there must be a mechanism to have their employers pay the premiums (or at least what they were currently paying) for those who do not qualify for 100% need base subsidization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I agree
There's no right or wrong on this question, though - it's like taking the pulse of DU. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. HR3200 is acceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. + 1. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. There are several requirements:
1) A public option robust enough to apply competitive pressures on health coverage costs and to provide an acceptable form of coverage for those who cannot get coverage any other way, but preferably available to all.
2) Outlawing of such unacceptable insurer practices as pre-existing-conditions exclusions, recissions when enrollees become too expensive, and so on.
3) An adequate subsidy for those who cannot afford to purchase coverage.
4) Portability nationally and across employers.
5) No subnational geographic restrictions or coverage area.
6) Adequate benefit structure and a required process to judge the need to add or subtract benefits.
7) A coverage mandate -- no free riders.
8) Ability to negotiate lower prices from vendors in all areas of health, including pharmaceuticals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Something I'd add is requirement to cover more areas of potential coverage
Including dental, which strongly needs it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dtotire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. A strong public option
Also, a standard benefit package similar to that in the Federal Employees Benefit Plan providing all preventive care(immunizations, colonoscopy,mammograms,etc.)
Max co-payments of $20
Maximum out-of pocket expenses no greater than $7,000 per calendar year
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. Out law precondition discrimination and rescission and a cost reducer such as
...regulation of private and public NFP executive pay and profits, Federal regulation of Private NFPs, public option, NATIONWIDE Co-Op NFP that is a GSE and capped.

I'll take that for starters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
8. It would use Medicare as the opt in plan for a true public option
and it would clearly lay out the ground work for moving us to a single payer system. Any bill that would only provide "coverage" with no guarantee of actual access to health care would be unacceptable as would anything that's main point appeared to be to protect insurance company profits. Point of service fees would be minimal ($10/$15) and the thousands of dollars in deductibles that HR3200 allows would not be included.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I agree that..
we need health "care" reform, not just "insurance" reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
11. A bill that covers everyone
in the sense that people can walk into the hospital and get treated
without having to produce insurance ID, just as in Canada and Holland
but unique to the American people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
12. At a minimum, anything
that puts strict limits on premiums, deductibles, and co-pays and requires at least 80/20 coverage of most medical expenses would be acceptable to me. I want government to start REALLY breathing down the insurance companies' necks. It would also be cool if insurance companies were required to share (or to borrow a more radical phrase "spread the wealth") its profits among its customers (i.e. dividend checks) when they are prospering. That last part seems more like science fiction rather than something that would ever probably happen in real life but hey, a guy can dream, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC