1. It is socialism. The Democratic plan would add about 15 million people over 10 years to Medicaid,
Which is an increase in size of a socialist program.
It also would provide subsidies to middle-income families to help them buy private coverage.
Which fits under the broadest definitions of socialism, but if you are Jill Lawrence doesn't want to consider it socialism that's fine as well.
Of course the program does a lot more than that. It comes close to taking control of insurance companies, mandating what they cover, who they cover, and also regulating prices. If that's not socialism (because technically the government will not own the insurance companies) than its corporatism, and many supporters are far it because they see it a way to later get single payer (actual socialism).
2. It is a government takeover. The federal government would certainly be more involved in regulating insurance companies.
A lot more. Enough that calling it a takeover is not unreasonable.
. It is being "rammed through."
It is. The Senate couldn't pass it today. And the House is talking about passing it by creating a rule that would consider voting for a reconciliation bill to be voting for the original Senate bill. Moving from voting for it without reading it to "passing it" without voting on it.
It is unconstitutional. The bill requires every American to buy health insurance
Which is not withing the constitutionally granted powers of the US federal government.
Insurance companies sought the mandate
Companies love having people forced to buy their product, but that's hardly relevant to the constitutional issue.
he mandate would not be the first imposed by state or federal governments -- they already require people to buy car insurance, buckle seat belts and wear motorcycle helmets, not to mention make sure their children are educated.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
States don't have that limit. All those laws are state laws (even if the federal government forced the states to pass them.
Also the helmets and the education aren't forcing people to buy something, and even the car insurance isn't (you can refrain from owning a car, or you can own one and not register it for use on public roads).
6. It has sleazy special deals.
It certainly does.
The final package will not have these special deals.
It will have some. Perhaps even new ones if they are needed to get the bill passed.
8. It would do too little to curb costs.
True.
Amazingly, some people argue both No. 7 and No. 8.
The two are not absolutely mutually exclusive (although many arguments for each are incompatible with many arguments for the other)
. They include financial incentives for doctors and hospitals to provide efficient, coordinated care (rather than getting reimbursed for every test, procedure and hospital readmission); research into what treatments work best; a focus on preventive services and chronic care; pilot programs on ways to limit malpractice suits and awards; and an independent advisory board to recommend cost-saving changes in Medicare.
None of which clearly amounts to significant cost savings, while insuring more people amounts to adding costs, as does more extensive mandates on insurance coverage.
9. It isn't popular.
It isn't, even if the extent of the unpopularity is exaggerated by some of its opponents. |
