| It's happened. The health care bill passed the US House yesterday.
The New York Times has a quick recap of what consumers should expect from this bill:
The uninsured are clearly the biggest beneficiaries of the legislation, which would extend the health care safety net for the lowest-income Americans.
The legislation is meant to provide coverage for as many as 32 million people who have been shut out of the market - whether because insurers deem them too sick or because they cannot afford ever-rising insurance premiums.
Read the whole analysis of the effects of the health-care bill.
I've already expressed my ambivalence about the bill here. While Matt called out some of the more ardent opposition to the bill as "Glenn Beckian" for ignoring "science and research," I think many of the bill's supporters are ignoring the fact that the bill does nothing substantial to actually reform the health-care system and battle rising costs. To wit: the way the industry is set up today, it gives incentives to
-- insurers to pass along as much cost to the consumer as they can
-- health care providers to perform unnecessary and expensive procedures
-- consumers to avoid preventative medicine and early treatment.
Which drives up cost. The bill, in short, has the government taking on some of the cost passed on to the consumer while forcing the insurer to take on more risk, and...that's about it. There will be studies and research and etc & co that might - should - translate into greater efficiencies in health care delivery, but fee-for-service payment still endures. The currently uninsured who will have insurance will no doubt be more inclined to seek out out early and preventative treatment, but the myth of "moral hazard," which believes consumers with high deductibles will choose health care procedures more wisely, instead of avoiding it altogether (which is what consumers actually do), endures.
That said, this bill will save lives. It will allow people who currently can't find any insurance to find medical coverage. Low-income families will receive subsidies to buy insurance. Insurers can no longer use pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to children. Young people can remain on their parents' policies longer. Small business owners will receive tax credit for providing their employees healthcare benefits. Eventually, purchasing prescription medication will be cheaper for seniors on Medicare, Medicaid will be expanded, and no insurer will be able to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
So, yeah. The bill is a poultice. It will help a lot of people at a reasonable cost. It's not real "reform." But then, to really have fixed the system, the government would have had to destroy the private health insurance industry.
And here's one thing that bugged me all along about this process and we critics who constantly dogged Congressmen and the bill's supporters: all the criticism seemed to imply that there was some "magic bullet" that people were too afraid to use that would have made this bill and this process picture perfect. Do you really think - given the makeup of Congress, the power of corporations and their lobbyists, and the role of the media - that the outcome could have been any better? |
