Most people probably breathed a sigh of relief when they heard that a health care reform (HCR) bill has been passed by the House.  Despite any political conflict, at the very least it will be nice to see congressional action for a change.  Now, that bulging stack of papers can be sent by FedEx or UPS (depending on which stock you own) to President Obama’s desk to be signed into law.

As with any first draft, there are still adjustments and improvements to be made.  Unlike a doctoral thesis, however, a law must be worked with and the margins written upon to maximize the societal benefit.  Some of the assumptions made by policy makers may be difficult to support with fact, despite any momentum the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) may have provided to the numbers.

First and foremost, I want to dissect the “Cadillac” clause that taxes employer provided individual health care plans valued at $8,500/10,200 or family health care plans valued at $23,000/27,500 (pre comp version/compromise).  The rationale behind this is that it will curb medical inflation, and that rationale is not sound.

Most of the changes don’t take effect until 2014, by which time most employers and insurers will have maneuvered enough to miss most of the harsher penalties.  That is why this tax seems like such a ridiculous notion.  It may hurt union members who have accepted lower compensations for better benefits, but it isn’t as if these terms are being implemented tomorrow; there is plenty of time for unions and other groups to lobby and reassess bargaining agreements while considering this new information.

Another interesting feature is the abortion coverage.  Under the compromise, people would have to shell out private funds to acquire abortion coverage for themselves.  Despite any personal feelings about abortion, it seems fair that those that want the coverage can choose to get it without having the state pay for it.  This leaves out the impoverished, whom many would argue are the most at risk in the first place.  However, laws have imperfections and it idealogical concessions must be made.

One of the sneakier clauses in this piece of legislation involves student loans.  Yes, student loans.  From my understanding at this very early stage, it basically makes the federal government the sole lender for students and tries to completely cut out the private lenders that have apparently been “preying” on students with aggressive lending schemes and complex rate layouts.  Is the Federal Government really the entity to be giving out lessons on how to properly borrow and lend money?  Is this the new reality that we exist in?  In that case, I suggest everyone goes and sees the documentary that just came out on rabbits: Alice in Wonderland.

1. aeonra liked this
2. newfinance posted this