Some Facts on the House Health Reform Bill

Welcome to this installment of the Weekly Health Insurance News Roundup. This week we will look at just one article, but it’s a good one. It comes to us from The Salt Lake City Tribune and is entitled, “Health reform: What the House bill is really about”. This article takes a look at the health reform bill in the House of Representatives, what it does right, what it does wrong and what some of the misconceptions are.

This article looks first at the main portion of the bill, which is to provide universal health insurance coverage to all Americans (note, not illegal immigrants though). This would give the over forty-seven million Americans who don’t currently have health insurance easier access to health care. While that’s a noble goal that’s not easy to come by, the author of the article points out some negatives that are worth noting.

First, he says that by hanging onto the “failed employer-based insurance model,” this limits reforms, even though there are still plenty of reforms within this bill. The bill requires all Americans and nearly all businesses to obtain health insurance. Those who don’t get insurance will pay penalties. The bill would also expand Medicaid to help lower income individuals and families to give them access to health insurance coverage and deny insurance companies from turning away patients with pre-existing coverage.

Also, people with gross incomes of $280,000 or more would pay a progressive surtax to help pay for this boom in new health insurance recipients and the health care they would have access to. This would also help pay for the expansion of Medicaid and the subsidies to be received by those who were unable to afford it.

There are some problems though, as the author says the bill focuses more on granting universal coverage rather than saving the costs associated with health care, which are skyrocketing at a tremendous rate. The author also isn’t too keen on the idea of a health insurance marketplace, or health insurance exchanges since it focuses on competition rather than true reform. However, the most controversial portion is the public option, which would give customers access to a government-controlled health insurance plan that would compete directly with private plans.

While what we’re looking at here is not a true single-payer system, but rather a government-supervised plan, it’s still meeting with much opposition, even when keeping outdated systems in order to keep the outdated status quo. We’ll see in the coming months and years how this pans out. vised plan, it’s still meeting with much opposition, even when keeping outdated systems in order to keep the outdated status quo. We’ll see in the coming months and years how this pans out.