I know this is probably hopeless, but I am really hoping to get a clear answer on these questions. I honestly don't know if the bill is worth supporting. One side says that the mandates and the regulations are too poor to justify it (or, at least, those are the arguments I take seriously. I don't care that you think the mandate is immoral -- I don't, so don't bother wasting your pixels on that issue, please). Supporters say it will do too much good, even in its weakened state, to reject.
I understand the opponents arguments, but I don't understand the supporters in the face of the points brought up by the opponents. So, after the cut, i am going to lay out what I think are the prime objections, and I would hope that supporters could explain why those points are wrong and/or why the bill still does too much good to let die.
- It won't actually help 30 million people get health care Opponents say this because:
- The subsidies are too small, so insurance still won't be affordable
- What can be purchased will be junk plans, so it wont do anyone much good anyway
- There are annual caps on medical expenditures, so people will still get denied coverage
- doctor bills and drug payments don't count against out of pocket maximums
- There are no limits on the deductibles and co-pays in the insurance plans
- It will make existing plans weaker I am stealing this form FDL, but per the CBO, the excise tax on insurance plans will not be indexed to health insurance, and so more and more people will be it with it and so more and more people will be forced ot either accept less services or higher co-pays.
- The regulations are too weak
- The recision regulations allow loop holes for fraud, meaning that the insurance companies can still refuse you coverage until you prove you did not commit fraud
- There is nothing in the bill that prevents insurance companies form refusing services, just as they do now.
I am asking supporters to respond because to me that seems like a damning list of particulars, one that will be worse from a policy and a political perspective than the status quo. Why is that list wrong? Or if it s not wrong, what compensates for those problems in the bill? If I thought that 30 million people would actually get better lives because of this bill, I would support it, Lieberman's BS notwithstanding. But as far as I can tell, it won't do that. Convince me that I am wrong.
Oh, and in the same way that I don't care if you think mandates are immoral, I don't care if you think the bill is bad politics. On an issue like this, the policy must trumps, so if it is good policy but potentially bad politics, then it is our job to convince our neighbors and friends that the policy is the right one.