It’s been a huge week in American politics, and Disinfo readers seem awfully quiet about their feelings on the matter. What’s the problem folks, did you spend too much energy screaming at your Facebook friends? We’d love to hear your opinions on this article and the health care bill. Is it the a good thing, or a tool of the ‘new world order?’
From the Economist:
Barack Obama has transformed health reform from near death to fact. So how will Obamacare change America’s health system?
THE Barack Obama who addressed Americans at near midnight on March 21st had every right to gloat. After a year in which his proposals for health reform were savaged by Republicans and leftists alike, and declared dead half a dozen times by everyone, he has somehow managed to get them over the finishing line.
The reform package is made up of two bills. One, a flawed and pork-laden version of health reform passed by the Senate before Christmas, has now been approved by the House; Mr Obama signed this on March 23rd. The other is a “reconciliation” bill meant to fix some of its flaws, and the House also passed this. Because this is a new bill, the Senate has to pass it too. It can do so under special “reconciliation” rules that require only 50 votes, not a filibuster-proof 60. As The Economist went to press, it looked set to do so.
What will it mean for America? The short answer is that the reforms will expand coverage dramatically, but at a heavy cost to the taxpayer. They will also do far too little to rein in the underlying drivers of America’s roaring health inflation. Analysis by RAND, an independent think-tank, suggests that the reforms will actually increase America’s overall health spending—public plus private—by about 2% by 2020, in comparison with a scenario of no reform (see chart). And that rate of spending was already unsustainable at a time when the baby-boomers are starting to retire in large numbers.
The heart of the new reform is a restructuring of America’s flawed insurance market. Insurers now face tough new regulations forbidding such practices as dropping people with “pre-existing conditions” (real or trumped up), or putting lifetime caps on coverage.
[Read more at the Economist]