Here's the thing. I know there's a rational debate to be had on health and perhaps a solid argument that the current bill is flawed. But that rational debate has not been happening. In fact, it's not been happening for about seventy years.
I'm told by Fox News etc that most Americans don't want it, but almost everyone I know, DID want it passed. Certainly my girlfriend who had to go into hospital for an immediate and serious operation and then had to leave after two days (when the doctor said she should be in for more), still in huge pain, because her insurance didn't extend any further. Certainly the people who've lost house, home and family after years of careful and responsible living, solely because they had the nerve to get ill and some small print pointed out that the insurance companies only wanted to help well people.
No, instead of a debate, we've had Palin, Beck,O'Reilly, Coulter etc running what goes beyond merely skewed reporting into blatant propaganda and misinformation for the GOP. I say that not as someone who's a 'Leftie' but as a journalist. On that level alone, what passes for 'journalism' was shameful. We've had a slew of buzzwords and sound-bites that are designed to misinterpret the facts and create an almost hysteria in the process. Reasonable points and genuine disagreements have been lost under the slew of 'DEATH-CAMPS FOR GRANNY!', 'SOCIALIST NAZIS ARE AFTER YOUR ORGANS!' and 'OBAMA IS HITLER!'. (Seriously, a week or so ago on Facebook, a fairly right-wing actor posted an anti-Bill thread and talked how it was against the spirit that made America great. Tens of people immediately agreed with him and yet when a regular replier started talking about 'Omama and his gorrila wife' and I called them out on it as going beyond fair debate, I was told she wasn't being racist and had a right to be genuinely upset!). Not one person called them out - and this in a 'Tea-Partiers should be taken seriously' thread????????)
If the more rational Republicans - and there obviously are some - believe in elements of the bill and that giving a basic level of care to everyone isn't somehow equivalent to Stalin, but not enough of it to support it, they've had more than enough time in the last administration to do something. Not just talk, but DO. No-one did.
So last night, it looks like someone finally has. It's fine to disagree with it and explain why in coherent, well-researched sentences, but instead of the buzzwords, let's continue a genuine debate. Here's the chance to say 'THIS is how WE'd do it and this is WHY our way is better'. Instead? I'm already hearing pundits telling me that they blame the would-be 1960s radicals and those actors out of Hollywood and San Francisco for what's happened today and that he will do anything he can to reverse this or bring it down. Sack the speaker! Call Stupak a baby-killer! That poor people regularly abuse the ER by going there when they get ILL. (Shock!) That America just took a step towards its own destruction. That this bill will explicitly help fund abortion. Etc etc etc..
The facts? The immediate benefits?
New help for some uninsured: People with a medical condition that has left them uninsurable may be able to enroll in a new federally subsidized insurance program that is to be established within 90 days. The legislation appropriates $5 billion for this, although that may not be enough to cover all who apply; it's not clear how much consumers would pay as their share of the cost. About 200,000 people are covered in similar state programs currently, at an estimated cost of $1 billion a year, says Karen Pollitz, a research professor at Georgetown University.
Discounts and free care in Medicare: The approximately 4 million Medicare beneficiaries who hit the so-called "doughnut hole" in the program's drug plan will get a $250 rebate this year. Next year, their cost of drugs in the coverage gap will go down by 50 percent. Preventive care, such as some types of cancer screening, will be free of co-payments or deductibles starting in 2010.
Coverage of kids: Parents will be allowed to keep their children on their health insurance plan until age 26, unless the child is eligible for coverage through a job. Insurance plans cannot exclude pre-existing medical conditions from coverage for children under age 19, although insurers could still reject those children outright for coverage in the individual market until 2014.
Tax credits for businesses: Businesses with fewer than 25 employees and average wages of less than $50,000 could qualify for a tax credit of up to 35 percent of the cost of their premiums.
Changes to insurance: All existing insurance plans will be barred from imposing lifetime caps on coverage. Restrictions will also be placed on annual limits on coverage. Insurers can no longer cancel insurance retroactively for things other than outright fraud.
Government oversight: Insurers must report how much they spend on medical care versus administrative costs, a step that later will be followed by tighter government review of premium increases.
Want to convince me the Bill shouldn't have passed. That there's a better way? Fine. Perhaps we could start from a place that doesn't refuse cover because they consider rape a pre-existing condition.
Be well.
