Become informed and defend your freedoms.  This is a website for citizens by an independent citizen.

in 2009 there is no bigger issue

Analysis of the Baucus Healthcare Bill

The Bill being considered in the Senate Finance Committee has already faced formidable opposition and criticism.   The indication is that it will receive a face lift before being approved by this committee.  The leftists do not think it it tough enough and the conservatives do not like the tax burden for the middle class.  So there is much to dislike and not much to like, says Kim Strassel of WSJ.

She details how the the Bill will be loaded with features favored by the Leftist liberals before it is passed by the committee, for the Republicans have not supported the Bill thus far, and are not likely to do so.  Obama wants something, and this is the leading candidate in the Senate or House, thus far, and matches closest the provisions he spoke of in his speech.  

Heritage Foundation published the 7 Flaws of the Baucus Bill, much along the lines of what is presented here.

Costs of Bills are thrown out as though measure to the last billion, when I fact they are not.   Many assumptions go into these analyses.   Washington Post writes:

"First, he claims the bill would cost only $856 billion. (Remember when that sounded like a lot of money?) In fact, that likely understates the true cost. The Congressional Budget Office only looks at a 10-year budget window, that is, 2010 to 2019. But most of the bill wouldn't even start until 2014. Thus, the "10-year cost" covers only five years of actual spending. Future costs are expected to increase dramatically."

The Bill does not have a public option, but would install exchanges in their place, which many commentators describe the exchange concept as public option light.  So the probability that no matter what is in the final Bill, there will likely be an enhanced path to a single payer system, and total control of healthcare by the government, as compared to the 50% that exists now.

So the Bill can be encapsulated as increasing the cost of care (mandates on no caps, all insured at the same rate, increased demand pool for full service, etc.), with removal of HSA's, more requirements on businesses (which might actually incentivize businesses to place their employees on the government Medicaid plan, etc.) all coming with a tax increase.  Seems like a high cost to achieve anything.  Is this the best that Congress could achieve after months of work?  

This video covers some of the discussion on the tax burden, and by the way this Bill, and apparently the pothers, essentially eliminate the HSA accounts and concepts, which of course if it was a matter of cost reduction, would be something they should want to keep.