Saturday, April 03, 2010

10 Things Every American Should Know About Health Care Reform


1. Once reform is fully implemented, 94% of Americans will have health insurance coverage, including 32 million who are currently uninsured.

2. Health insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny people coverage because of preexisting conditions—or to drop coverage when people become sick.

3. Just like members of Congress, individuals and small businesses who can't afford to purchase insurance on their own will be able to pool together and choose from a variety of competing plans with lower premiums.

4. Reform will cut the federal budget deficit by $143 billion over the next ten years, and a whopping $1.2 trillion in the following ten years.

5. Health care will be more affordable for families and small businesses thanks to new tax credits, subsidies, and other assistance—paid for largely by taxing insurance companies, drug companies, and the very wealthiest Americans.

6. Seniors on Medicare will pay less for their prescription drugs because the legislation closes the "donut hole" gap in existing coverage.

7. By reducing health care costs for employers, reform will create or save more than 2.5 million jobs over the next decade.

8. Medicaid will be expanded to offer health insurance coverage to an additional 16 million low-income people.

9. Instead of losing coverage after they leave home or graduate from college, young adults will be able to remain on their families' insurance plans until age 26.

10. Community health centers would receive an additional $11 billion, doubling the number of patients who can be treated regardless of their insurance or ability to pay.


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10. "Affordable Health Care for America: Summary," House Energy and Commerce Committee, March 18, 2010

3. "Insurance Companies Prosper, Families Suffer: Our Broken Health Insurance System," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Accessed March 22, 2010

4. "Affordable Health Care for America: Health Insurance Reform at a Glance: Revenue Provisions," House Energy and Commerce Committee, March 18, 2010

5. "New Jobs Through Better Health Care," Center for American Progress, January 8, 2010

8, 9. "Proposed Changes in the Final Health Care Bill," The New York Times, March 22, 2010

10. "Affordable Health Care for America: Health Insurance Reform at a Glance: Addressing Health and Health Care Disparities," House Energy and Commerce Committee, March 20, 2010


James Dionne said...

"paid for largely by taxing insurance companies, drug companies, and the very wealthiest Americans."

They will just pass these increases along to the consumer. You are a fool if you think otherwise. And if they are not allowed to? Then they go out of the health insurance business,thus reducing the competition, and we still get increases (or a single payer system, which was the socialist goal all along.) Too bad this new law violates the "equal protection under the law" clause of the constitution by allowing people in Florida and Nebraska to keep their current coverages the way they are. Good luck getting that past the SCOTUS.

wbman said...

That may all be true, but I prefer the Concord Coalition's caution over the rose-colored view of Move On:

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Actually I prefer The Heritage Foundation analysis: is funded by a billionaire industrialist that hates America and is interested in tearing down America.

The people at Heritage care about this country.

That's the health care anlaysis I would give the most confidence in.

Anyone taking policy analysis from needs to take the underlying, anti-U.S. motives, into context.

Anonymous said...

Where the organizations get their funding is irrevelant. Either the information they are providing is true or it is not. Both and the Heritage Foundation have a biased agenda. I don't trust either organization for providing unbiased analysis of anything. We need to get our information from multiple sources and multiple viewpoints in order to get the full picture of a subject of debate.

Kevin Scheunemann said...


So the article Mark wrote on the tea party linking tea party funding to the Koch brothers is irrelevant? Why did he spend so much time on it, even after the WB News rejected him on the original copy?

I failed to see your denouncement of Mark for that tea party "funding" expose' issue.

I'm fine with your criticism and outrage of my comment about organizational funding, but your outrage needs to be consistent.

"Progressives" don't want to talk about funding when one brings up anti-U.S. billionaire George Soros attempting to undermine our country for his gain with organizations like for some reason want to talk about funding when it comes to tea party patriots.

DanBack said...

You fail to see a lot of things Kevin ;)

If only your wife would allow you out of the house to have me explain them all to you!

Anonymous said...

First off, Kevin, I wasn't posting comments on here until about a week ago. The post you are referring to is several weeks old. The point Mark was trying to make in that post was that the Tea Party movement isn't the grassroots, average Joe movement that it was portraying itself as. He was trying to show that the movement really started out as a movement of billionaires and still is. Therefore, the issue of funding is relevant to that discussion. The issue of funding would be irrelevant to any particular point the Tea Parties try to make about the issues themselves.

Secondly, I'm not sure where you see outrage in my comments. I guess I'll have to start using emoticons in my comments. :)

Thirdly, apparently you didn't notice that I also included in my distrust of partisan organizations like the Heritage Foundation. Organizations like these are indeed funded by partisans for partisan purposes. That alone doesn't make their analyses wrong. It does, however, mean that a higer level of scrutiny is required of the arguments they make.

In the end, I don't think using as a source of information is helpful to Mark's argument that the health care bill isn't bad. Nor do I think using the Heritage Foundation as a source of information is helpful to your argument. I would rather see an analysis done by an organization that was at least making an attempt to be non-partisan.

John Jost said...

Distinguished arguers, you seem to have noticed nothing but the "From" header.

Have you seen the sources MoveOn quoted? Most of them end in .gov, which is neither MoveOn nor Heritage.

Come on now.

Kevin Scheunemann said...


Thanks for the offer.


The Tea party is a grassroots movement. That's where I have the problem with using the funding issue to demonize. If we are going to "stoop" to a funding level, the funding demonization belongs to organizations like

I didn't mean to get on you so hard about equality of funding outrage.

Your point about funding being irrelevant to the political advocacy was an overall excellent one and I agree with it!

The problem is: in political practice, this attempt to demonize by funding issue is used when progressive/lefties can't address the merits of the issues the tea partiers stand for.

So I apologize if my beef in this area came off a little harsh.

Marshwood said...

"The Tea party is a grassroots movement."