Understanding the New Health Care Laws

Let's be honest with ourselves: do we really understand the health care bill that President Obama just signed into law this morning? Do we really comprehend how it will affect the budget and taxes? Do our congressmen really understand these issues?

Over the past year, and especially over the past ten days, the American public has been bombarded with conflicting information from Republicans and Democrats. Republicans say this new law will end up increasing taxes for most people. Democrats say this will save the country a lot of money in the long run. Republicans say public money will now be spent on abortions, while Democrats say it won't. Democrats claim this bill will only enhance the health care that most Americans already have while providing access, for the first time, to millions who are uninsured. Republicans claim that our current system will only be worsened by the new law.

So who's right? Who's telling the truth? I think it's hard to tell, because the real meaning and impact of the legislation has been clouded by political spin and rhetoric. In addition, the new law is thousands of pages long and is written in legal language that is not accessible to the average American. How can those of us who aren't politicians or lawyers dissect these new laws, comprehend them, and formulate founded opinions on their potential for good or bad?

Let's discuss this together and see what we can come up with. Here's what I know so far (feel free to correct me if you disagree):

The bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve of '09 passed the House late Sunday night, and was signed into law this morning by the President.

The House also passed amendments to the bill that need to be approved by the Senate with a simple majority vote (because of the rule known as Reconciliation). The Senate has said that it will promptly consider these amendments, and if approved, will send them to the President for his signature.

The most immediate effects of the new law are that people who have not been able to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions will be able join a high-risk insurance pool within 90 days; within six months, insurance companies will not be able to deny insurance to children with pre-existing conditions; and young adults will now be able to stay on their parents' insurance plan until the age of 26.

In the year 2014, almost all Americans will be mandated to have a health insurance policy or be forced to pay a penalty; larger companies will be forced to provide coverage to their employees or face a penalty; and Medicaid will be expanded to cover 16 million people. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/03/22/acosta.what.is.in.the.health.bill.cnn?hpt=T1

In my opinion, it seems like these provisions will initially benefit needy people and hurt insurance companies. But if insurance companies and large businesses experience decreased profits because of these new requirements, that may mean higher costs and/or less income for Americans who are already insured. Indeed, ten States have already filed lawsuits against the Federal Government under the grounds that the new Law unconstitutionally mandates citizens to purchase, and businesses to provide, health insurance.

Now what's your opinion? What are your thoughts and questions regarding health care reform? Do you have some insights that can help others understand the facts? Then share them, and together let's discuss these changes in a well-reasoned, informed manner. My guess is that we can achieve greater consensus than politicians would have us believe.

Is it possible to fix Illinois budget problems without increasing taxes?

Check out this recent article from the Chicago Tribune (especially the graphic): "Illinois stuck in a 'historic, epic' budget crisis"

At this new level of State debt are there enough, large enough, budget line items that can be cut over the next few years to get Illinois back on track?

What are the socio-economic ramifications of reducing the State budget (Medicaid, Human services, education) vs the outcomes if we do not?

Is a business really private if it can't set its own prices? A philosophical look into an aspect of Health Care Reform.

From npr.org http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124471919

Insurance Mandates
One of the most popular things the bill would do is ban insurance companies from excluding people or raising their rates, because they have what's known as a pre-existing medical condition.

Here are some question I have:

1. Who determines whether or not a decision made not to insure someone was based on pre-existing conditions?

2. Is a private company really private if the government sets the prices at which it sells its goods/services?

An Invitation

I'm starting this blog because I am interested in government, how it works, and how we might improve it. I say government, and not politics, because like most people I am turned off by politicians, their phony rhetoric, self-interest, and mudslinging. I understand that politics is a necessary component of government and that it can lead to debate and compromise, which are aspects of a healthy democracy. But it seems to me that the political arena in this country has moved away from healthy debate, and has left its citizens disillusioned, disenfranchised and disinterested.

This blog is an attempt to start a new dialogue about government and current events from a politically independent position. Its goals are to promote learning and to generate ideas for solutions through discussion and debate. I encourage any and all to participate in this online, Independent Think Tank.