Quote:
Originally Posted by philly_kid
I don't have the expertise to debate all of your points on the merits, but let me say a few things.
The administration based it's plan on the idea the employer-base HC was a tenant of broad support from the American people. I wonder if your plan would have popular support given the high number of people with employer supported plans who like their health care plan but would have to give it up. The ads would say, "x percentage of you will lose your health care coverage if this plan passes ." I currently have a good plan supported by my employer. I'm not sure it would be good for me.
If people had a tax break to support coverage, they wouldn't be able to have abortion coverage even if that portion was not supported by a tax break - if you use the abortion amendment votes in the House as an indicator. The majority of the House rejected the idea that you could separate out abortion insurance. Of course, members might change their minds under a different scenario, but this issue would provide cover for those who opposed your plan. I guess you would have a plan where there would not be abortion insurance for anyone who accepted a HC tax break. I'm not sure if pro-choice members would support this.
People with plans would still have to pay for the uninsured who got really sick and didn't have health insurance but were still treated.
Allowing coverage across state lines might reduce costs, but would it be because there is less coverage? Would my plan be cheaper for my employer with less coverage under you scenario?
How would people who can't afford any plan (the long term unemployed) be covered? Medicaid or something like that?
I appreciate the effort to outline your own plan. Is it similar to the GOP plan? Under that plan, I believe 3 million additional people were likely to be covered as compared to the 30 million - i think - under the Senate bill. I'm not trying to hate on your plan, but I think my post points out that a simple pared-down plan might not gain broad-based support (from people who currently have a good employer based plan, from pro-choice democrats, from people who's main concern is to greatly expand the pool of coverage).
|
I am not going to really get into "if it would pass or not" since none of the above is even remotely being discussed by the actual events taking place. But as a general rule of thumb, the less things you touch at once, the less opposition from people tied to the status quo you receive.
Also, I can probably guarantee my proposal would NOT have broad support because it is completely out of line with what the Congressional Dems want to do. They want to add more direct control to this segment of the economy. If it was a Republican majority in Congress, something like it probably would have a better chance to pass (and without a super majority).
But it all gets back to my main point and the point of the article. The status of the HC bill isn't because Republicans are "just being obstructionist" or democrats being spineless. It is probably because it is a bill that doesn't have popular support.