When I talk about the health care reform debate with people, questions come up. That's the point I realize that I just don't know enough about what I'm talking about. Here is the structure of the debate, as I see it, and the questions that have bubbled up to the surface.
Let me just say that I'm 100% in Slinkerwink's and Nyceve's camp here. I'm just trying to get my facts straight so I can argue with the other side with more confidence. All of my assumptions / statements assume a strong public option, because anything less is just unacceptable.
One of the problems that I encounter has to do with basic civics. Many people don't understand where we stand at this moment and don't understand how this monster of reform is being crafted. I consider myself pretty well-aware of the arguments, however, my own confidence can be swayed by ignorant and angry people pulling stoopid out of their collective butts. Please correct my following statements for accuracy.
*The lower house of Congress (the House of Representatives) has actually published and passed a bill on health care reform. This is something that is concrete, can be pointed to, and referenced line by line.
*The Senate, has been working on a bill and working and wrangling and arguing, and... well, we hope something happens before Christmas.
*Whatever comes out of the Senate will have to be reconciled with the House version of the bill before anything is sent to the President's desk to sign into law.
*President Obama has an proposal for reform that he's been following in his town hall meetings. Can I safely assume that the House bill was crafted from President Obama's talking points?
Once past the basics, it's time to get down to the specifics. Each question needs to be considered in the context of the current House bill, The Senate Bill, and the end product that goes to the President's desk. (Please don't flame me here... If I have these questions, then there are thousands out there like me that have the same questions.)
Would any citizen be able to choose the public option for his/her medical insurance coverage, or would that choice be available only to those that are currently uninsured?
I'm confused by the assertion that I've heard ad nauseum: "If you like the Insurance you've got, you can keep it."
What if my employer decides to switch insurers? Do I have to switch insurers along with my employer?
If I do have the option of keeping my insurance when my employer switches, are my premiums going to spike as a result of not being under the umbrella of negotiated discounts for a large corporate plan? What if I lose my job?
Assuming that the public option is closed to you if your employer provides health insurance... What is to keep insurers from making big deals with large employers, granting all kinds of "incentives" at the corporate level, but still providing crappy coverage to the employees?
Are there going to be a set of standards for coverage that any insurer will have to meet before it can be offered? For example, will all policies have to have some sort of prescription drug coverage?
Currently, I see three different types of insurance available to my family. I can get insurance that covers only catastrophic events. I can get insurance that covers the basics of preventative care and catastrophic events with very high co-pays. Finally, I can get the cadillac policies that are waaay out of reach for my budget. I understand that there will be a pool of plans available, so that you can choose the plan that best suits you or your family.
Is this going to end up being as complicated as choosing a Medicare prescription drug plan?
I'm tired of government action that only results in more confusion, as happened with the Medicare Prescription drug plan. The rules and options were so confusing, that people threw up their hands and said forgetaboutit. The insurance companies were pleased. I went through hell trying to figure it all out for my mother.
What about the doctors? I spoke with my doctor about how he feels about this. I mentioned the word "Medicare" and he groaned and shook his head. Doctors need to be compensated for the amount of education they have and the amount of risk they deal with every day in their profession. Cost reduction should be all about administrative costs, not necessarily physician salaries, IMHO.
Assuming the public option, how are the rates for doctor compensation going to be calculated?
What about all of the insurance paperwork that doctors have to deal with every day? Each company has different forms, different expectations for documentation, etc, etc, etc. It's a bean-counter's nightmare!
Are there any specific measures being taken to reduce and standardize paperwork so administrative costs are reduced?
It seems to me that with all of the yelling and screaming about death panels, and socialism, and (insert wing-nut gripe here)the real questions about health care reform are getting lost in the shuffle. I'm so tired of compromise. Compromise is going to end up costing us millions while single payer would dramatically help solve the cost issues. I heard in one of the Netroots discussion panels that we are competing with Twenty-Two Thousand lobbyists on Capital hill. I hope our President has the guts to veto whatever comes out of congress if it does more to help the Insurance industry than the American people.