Cool title huh? I thought that would grab you.
I was reading about an article from the Los Angeles Times about the new legislation that the House Democrats are putting forth for health care reform.
Some of the major points on the legislation include:
Requiring employers to provide coverage to their employees and to help subsidize health care for the poor.
I am all for corporations helping out the less fortunate but the government has no business forcing them to.
Requiring Americans up to 400% of the poverty level to be eligible for insurance credits.
But nothing about tax credits for those employers that are being forced to provide coverage.
Expanding Medicaid to cover individuals up to 133% of the poverty level.
Not too terrible an idea, expanding an already existing program instead of creating an entirely new one, however the legislation lacks any details on how all of their plans are going to be funded. From what I understand, President Obama is in favor of taxing health care premiums paid for by people who are covered by their employers. Bad bad idea!
Proposing a form of a public plan that offers the same reimbursement rates as Medicare.
Wait a minute? You want to expand a program already in place AND put a new plan out there? What kind of sense does that make? You are going to add that extra room on the house AND build an entirely new house right next to it? That makes absolutely no sense at all to me!
According to the article, President Obama has said "this proposal will improve the affordability, availability, and quality of health care....our goal of fixing what is broken about health care while building on what works..."
Okay. I can kind of see the affordability and availability part. Not that I agree with them. But I can see it. But quality? I see nothing in this legislation that addresses anything about the quality of health care. Nothing. What a moron.
I also read another article in the New York Times with some interesting statistics:
85% of those polled say health care system needs to be changed for rebuilt
77% are satisfied with their own care
50% say the government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers
60% say Washington would have more success in controlling costs
That part about the government being better off at providing medical coverage is interesting considering the same survey also revealed unease about the impact of heightened government involvement in regards to health care. Sounds to me like their numbers are out of whack.
Sadly, I think our only hope at this point is hoping the Republicans in Congress can stall this legislation for a couple of years before it becomes a reality and creates a bigger mess than we already have.