As we all know there is talk of taxing health care benefits to provide subsidies that will not be used to buy heath care for people who do not have it, but buy health insurance.
It will do nothing about recission.
It will do nothing about the denial of care.
Combined with a mandate it will drive the cost of health insurance even higher.
Current news coverage does not make this clear. Therefore we need a flood of letters to the editor alert citizens.
basic talking points:
It is being proposed that we tax health insurance benefits.
Those tax dollars will be used to help low income citizens purchase health insurance.
Health insurance will be mandatory, the cost of premiums will soar with a captive market.
The proposed tax is a huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the uber rich, and will do nothing to provide health care.
The proposed reform will do nothing to address the problem of denial of care.
A single payer system would cover everyone, reduce costs for employers, save $350 Billion a year.
Even if Congress lacks the courage to do the right thing, at minimum they should pass no plan that would prohibit the states from doing the right thing.
We need to get the word out. If you have not written a letter to the editor, please so do. Letters to the Editor are carefully monitored by politicians, so in addition to reaching members of the public you will also be reaching your Senator and Representative.
- DCblogger's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
recission probably isn't a big problem
it's huge problem right now of course, but will be less so under the new regime.
you occasionally read/hear about 'reinsurance' and 'risk adjustment' when the topic turns to health insurance exchanges, and this will most likely make it into whatever bill gets passed [i'm hoping nothing gets passed].
it it gets mandated that we all have to buy insurance, then the insurance companies will be required to sell to any of us who wants to buy [guaranteed issue], and if they are required to have guaranteed issue, it can only work if there's some kind of reinsurance or risk adjustment scheme.
and even under the most miserly public option being discussed [always assuming we get one], anybody who becomes uninsured will be able to buy into whatever the public option is. if there's no public option, we'll probably end up with some kind of high-risk pool arrangement [which is a very crappy way of doing things].
the delay and outright denial of care [be sure to scroll down to the part about gag clauses, nobody's talking about reining that in either] will be the big problems. there's absolutely nothing being put into any of the bills [that i've seen leaked drafts of anyway], and none of them are talking about it. pretty much every congress critter believes the overly-simplistic interpretation of the dartmouth atlas research that we keep hearing: less care is better for you, the lowest-spending parts of the country are doing it right, and everybody else is getting too much care.