A Few Words Regarding Next Week's Debate of H.R. 3590

1. 53

   tkrawforposted 8 years ago

   Dear "To whom This may Concern"
   
   I have read the Ronald Browenstein article. It is a good "general" endorsement of what many of us have felt ever since H.R. 3200 debuted. I read that as well. While I generally agree with Browensein's views on H.R. 3590, it is my sincere hope and prayer, that next week's debate take the following facts, albeit inferred, seriously into account.
   
   After reading all three bills, I agree with Browenstein that this bill "has all the goods."
   But I personally would go a step or two further in highlighting the order of the proposed reforms and the "passive" language upon which they depend.
   
   I am aware that the language in this kind of performative writing is often "passive" in its grammatical character, yet in next week's debate, please Senators: ladies and gentlemen, consider that buried in this bill are precisely the cost cutting measures many of you profess you are holding out for.
   
   For some of you, your main concern is cost, but you must remember, your ideas of "cost" are based on an outdated and inefficient health care insurance risk adjustment model. This bill addresses this connection many times (i.e. pg 692).
   
   I strongly urge you ladies and gentlemen to look at the overall bill from the perspective of
   Title III Subection C and then begin cross referencing to areas such as Subtitle E detailing medicare sustainability and Title XXXI which details Data Collection Analysis and Quality.
   
   Basically, the existing risk management model some of you are still using takes into account the current inefficiencies of the "current" Health Care Insurance System as factors that determine cost.
   
   Moreover, this bill suggests that most of the cost sharing in Affordable Health Care Insurance Coverage will be achieved at the Grass Roots level first.The hotly debated question of a "Public Option" is affordable.
   
   How?
   
   Buried deep within H.R. 3590, the framers use phrases like "Health Care Community Trust Fund,
   Consensus Based Entities and multi-stakeholders" to only describe a reformed infrastructure.
   
   The American People have said they approve of Public Option, why not give them the chance to work for one: each community in America working in small groups, as investors in their own state or regional Public Option based on local derivatives?
   
   Get this thing off the floor and iron out the language and let's all have a good holiday season.
   
   A Few Words from
   Tom

   replyreport