The Health Care Bill has been a topic of debate since it was originally introduced. It has gained more attention in recent days since a Florida judge ruled it unconstitutional and just today the Senate discussed and voted on repealing the bill. The repeal failed however by a margin of 51-47. There are many arguments for and against the bill, with one of the best known arguments against it being the mandate for all individuals to purchase health care insurance and one of the best arguments for it being that people with pre-existing conditions cannot be turned down for coverage.
I am in the middle on this issue, while I agree the health insurance industry needs something done to it so that more people can afford health insurance, I am not to keen on the fact that the government will be controlling it. The mandate requiring everyone to purchase insurance is an issue for me as well. I have heard many arguments stating things such as "we are required to pay Social Security, "we are required to have auto insurance" or "we are required to have homeowners insurance." My argument back to those statements are for one, you only have to pay Social Security if you have a job and are making an income. Auto insurance is only required if you choose to own an automobile, with liability only being required by law, collision is only required if you owe money on the vehicle and that is required by the lender, not by law. The same is true of homeowners insurance, if you own your home without a lien against it, you are not required to purchase insurance. The mandate in the Health Care Bill however will require all individuals to purchase health insurance regardless. No job, too bad, still required to purchase health insurance, plus you could be fined if you don't purchase it. The way the Health Care Bill is written, this mandate must be present for it to work.Something interesting about the mandate however is that in 2008, when Barack Obama was running for President, he spoke against having such a mandate in the Health Care Bill. He said "the problem isn't that people don't want health insurance, it's that they can't afford it and if the government can mandate everyone to buy health insurance then they could mandate everyone to buy a house and solve homelessness." You can hear more of what he said here http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GregHengler... . I think he makes a great point that if the government starts mandating us to do one thing, they can mandate us to do anything? Obama also stated that he would partially fund the bill by eliminating the so called Bush tax cuts, he has since approved leaving those tax cuts in place but has failed to mention were he intends to get money for the Health Care Bill now.I have been reading through the Health Care Bill, you can as well by going here http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_a... . One thing I have noticed is that there are many sections throughout the bill that state "as determined by the secretary," meaning the Secretary of Health and Human Resources. One of those areas is addressing people that would be considered to be in the high-risk pool. These are the people that the Health Care Bill is supposed to help because at present they get turned down for coverage. The section states that "If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting list." Another section states "The Secretary shall, with respect to the program establish procedures to protect against fraud, waste, and abuse under the program." We all know how well this has worked with other government run programs.
Whether you are for or against the Health Care Bill it is the law of the land, for now anyway. What are your thoughts?