President Obama and the American public have a lot riding on the health care vote next Sunday. AP Photo
By now most are assuming the Democrats will find the 216 votes necessary to pass the health care reform bill but passage is certainly not a sure thing. By all accounts the Democrats are still short of the votes they need and President Obama is lobbying hard to get to 216. Earlier I analyzed what would happen if the bill passes but now I will analyze the opposite scenario which is a defeat of the health care reform bill.
First as a practical matter Democrats will probably not hold an actual vote if they can not get to 216 by Sunday. Instead they will delay the vote or simply not schedule have the vote at all. Realistically this would mean the defeat of reform. The media would call the Democrat's attempt a failure and immediately start discussing whether this is the end of the Obama presidency. Delay would give reform opponents more time to persuade their congressmen and as a result Congress would probably simply drop the issue to move on to other areas like financial industry reform.
Politically this would mean no reform getting passed this year or for the next decade in all likelihood. The last time the Democrats failed to pass health care reform (1994) they did not get back to it until 2008. As long as President Obama is in power Republicans will not be able to pass their version of reform over his veto. Even when Republicans held the White House and Congress in the Bush years they failed to even try to pass health care reform. Health care reform is a political minefield and most politicians would rather avoid it than risk their political futures by taking it on.
As a result a defeat of this bill likely means that as a country we will keep the current system, or something very much like it, for the next ten years at least. Here is what that means practically for the average American:
#1: Health Care Costs Will Continue to Rise
Under estimates of the current system without reform premiums will continue to rise and Medicare and Medicaid will take up an increasing portion of the federal budget. Right now we spend approximately 16% of our national income on health care which is higher than any other country. Without reform that percentage will grow to 25% by 2025 and 37% by 2050. Medicare and Medicaid alone would take up 19% of the nation's income in the future which is equal to the entire federal budget.
To pay for this one of multiple things will have to occur. If the United States does not want to go further in debt we will either have to cut Medicare and Medicaid (an unlikely proposition since the elderly vote so much) or raise taxes. Option three would be continuing to allow the debt to rise and hoping for the best.
#2: More People Will Lose Their Current Insurance and Wages Would be Limited by Premium Increases
Under the current system premiums have more than doubled over the last decade. Without reform private health care would continue to become more expensive pricing many people out of the system. As premiums rose it would continue to put a limit on wage increases and many employers would simply stop choosing to provide health insurance coverage because of the costs. Right now 14,000 Americans are losing their insurance everyday under this scenario.
#3: Health Insurance Companies Will Retain Power Over Consumers
Right now health insurance companies can exclude the uninsured based on a pre-existing condition. This allows them to take on only the health who will make them a profit. In addition health insurance companies can rescind the policy of someone who has paid premiums for a variety of reasons. Most often if consumers want to appeal the decision of their health insurance company they must do so in arbitration setup by the company itself under terms of the policy. Health insurance companies also do not have to provide a minimum amount of benefits under federal law.
As a result of the current system around 30 million to 50 million people are uninsured. A total of 24% of the American population is "underinsured" meaning they have insurance but it provides very little coverage for even necessary procedures.
Without passage of reform the health care industry could simply retain these practices. As shown above the number of uninsured would likely increase due to increasing premiums.
#4: Abortions May Actually Increase Without Passage of Reform
Currently 87% of insurance policies cover abortion in some form. That would not change if reform fails to pass. In addition 75% of women who have an abortion cite concern over the ability to provide for their child as one of the main reasons for the procedure. Under the bill health care coverage to children would be expanded as children could no longer be excluded for pre-existing condition. In addition Medicaid would be expanded to cover many children. This increased coverage would likely relieve the concerns of many women who otherwise might have an abortion. Finally 80% of women who have had an abortion have never used birth control and many of those women were poor. This fact would not change under the current system. Under reform 15 million people (many of them poor women) would receive access to health care coverage including birth control under Medicaid.
Comments
You have no clue what an "average American" even is you Marxist moonbat.
The thoughtful nature of some peoples' comments really speaks volumes about their opposition to HCR.
Here are some of the effects on average Americans.
"Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.
In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees."
It seems that SCOTUS has already looked at the process involving the so-called Slaughter Solution as recently as 1998. The case was Clinton v City of New York. The court ruled ""Congress cannot alter the procedures set out in Article I, Section 7, without amending the Constitution." Specifically, the court wrote that no bill could become law unless "(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text."
Precedent seems to have been set just 12 years ago.
This would mean any elected official voting for the passage of this under the un-constitutional Slaughter Solution, would be in violation of their oath to obey and uphold the US Constitution an therefore should face impeachment.
Hey Mr. Witt; You forgot to mention that we will also disappoint our noble President, our obsequieous congress; our fifth grade civics teacher, Mother Teresa, Jesus and Mohamed. Not to mention being sternly scolded, sent to bed without dinner and getting a lump of coal from Santa.
Mr Witts title says:..."The Affects on the average American if the health care bill fails to pass...".
You really want to know Ryan.???
The average American (indeed ALL Americans! ) will have their Constitutional FREEDOMS and civil rights ensured and protected.!!!
jaime says:
"...The average American (indeed ALL Americans! ) will have their Constitutional FREEDOMS and civil rights ensured and protected.!!!"
Constitutional FREEDOMS and civil rights make terrible doctors and hospitals when you're "outside the system"
Who said tickle fight! I want in!
We don't have a Communistic "System "yet Walrus...you'll have to wait to perhaps Sunday. Then you and Snark and Jake can jump with glee at all the Conservatives that will end up in Jail for refusing to participate in your criminal theft and scam.
What we DO have is a free market system...which everyone is a participant in, at their own choice or not. Have you ever said you were 'self-pay' and ask what the Docs office would accept as payment?? I've reduced my costs significantly doing that...not every time but a enough times to make a big difference.
Hardly a 'free market,' jaime - considering how heavily the states regulate insurance.
And it's not the feds preventing buying health insurance across state lines, it's the states.
What you say is true "Snot", but my example for using self-pay works. It works because we still do have a free-market.
Just having competition amongst Insurances within States would go a long way in reducing costs...a simpler piece than this whole Power Grab false Health Care Scam that is before us.
I saw you on Carl Herman's post. That guy censors EVERYBODY.I suspect there may be a touch of "pathology" going on there...think?
More than a touch, jaime - serious paranoia, at a minimum; absolutely convinced s giant government conspiracy is out to silence him.
As for insurance competition, I'd like to see something akin to the federal employees health insurance system, which has fairly serious competition - although you'd still have to address things like uninsured, pre-existing conditions, etc.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!