Health Care Reform - almost a done deal? DONE

[calculusrocks]

Consider the "Pull the plug on Grandma" claim. That came from Senator Grassley and is absolute drivel. In fact, the end-of-life counsiling that he objected to is already in place and was a bill written by a Republican!

Yes, telling people that Democrats want to kill your grandmother does terrorize them.

Pffff. People are just going to wait to get sick to get health care. Then the insurance company will have to cover the illness because of the new health care legislation. After the insurance companies lose money, they will have to cut back on care. Rationing. Rationing is unavoidable, and granny may or may not get treatment in the years to come. Sure, it's not a single-payer, but it might as well be a death sentence to the insurance companies leading to a single-payer.

 

[calculusrocks]

Time will tell on grandma.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Pffff. People are just going to wait to get sick to get health care. Then the insurance company will have to cover the illness because of the new health care legislation. After the insurance companies lose money, they will have to cut back on care. Rationing. Rationing is unavoidable, and granny may or may not get treatment in the years to come. Sure, it's not a single-payer, but it might as well be a death sentence to the insurance companies leading to a single-payer.

Do you even know what the bill is? It requires everyone to have health insurance. This is the major sticking point that makes people call it socialism. Do you even know why you're criticizing the bill?

 

[Topher925]

The first thing to understand is that this is not "government-run healthcare". It doesn't even include a single-payer system, much less government-run hospitals. Using such language only shows that you don't understand the bill or the healthcare system.

This seems to be the general inclination with the American public. People seem to think that this bill is going to give our health care system a complete overhaul when its really just providing a very basic public option and mandating coverage for almost every citizen. Yet, people seem the think they are getting their "freedomz" taken away from them and we are on our way to a socialist government (but to arrogant to realize we haven't been capitalist for a long time).

I've recently had many conversations with peers about this subject and they all call me an ignorant liar when I tell them Hawaii has had a system much like this for years and just call me stupid when I tell them it actually works!

But perhaps the most intriguing lesson from Hawaii has to do with costs. This is a state where regular milk sells for $8 a gallon, gasoline costs $3.60 a gallon and the median price of a home in 2008 was $624,000 — the second-highest in the nation. Despite this, Hawaii’s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation’s lowest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/health/policy/17hawaii.html

I find the amount (and inanity) of the negative responses towards this health care bill is just more evidence of the "idiocracy" in this country and ultimately an omen that the prowess of the US will soon fall.

 

[Char. Limit]

My AP European History teacher (a wise man) tells us that the favorite part of government for conservatives, the military, is possibly the most socialist part of government.

Irony!

So, yeah, we're already socialist. How much could a little more hurt?

 

[calculusrocks]

Do you even know what the bill is? It requires everyone to have health insurance. This is the major sticking point that makes people call it socialism. Do you even know why you're criticizing the bill?

The point that you ignored is that someone can simply wait until he gets sick to get insurance. They can pay the fines, and just wait until they get sick.

 

[Char. Limit]

Why would you bother paying the fines, when you can just get health insurance and probably pay less money, as I believe that the fines get bigger over time?

Your argument isn't making as much sense as you think it is...

Wait, are ad argumentem attacks allowed?

 

[calculusrocks]

This seems to be the general inclination with the American public. People seem to think that this bill is going to give our health care system a complete overhaul when its really just providing a very basic public option and mandating coverage for almost every citizen. Yet, people seem the think they are getting their "freedomz" taken away from them and we are on our way to a socialist government (but to arrogant to realize we haven't been capitalist for a long time).

I've recently had many conversations with peers about this subject and they all call me an ignorant liar when I tell them Hawaii has had a system much like this for years and just call me stupid when I tell them it actually works!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/health/policy/17hawaii.html

I find the amount (and inanity) of the negative responses towards this health care bill is just more evidence of the "idiocracy" in this country and ultimately an omen that the prowess of the US will soon fall.

It only shows that you haven't read what I've been saying at all. Gov't has been running HMOs since the 1970s. We haven't had capitalism in a long, long time. Yet somehow capitalism is the boogieman. Don't say the "idiots" didn't warn you, okay?

 

[Nebula815]

The first thing to understand is that this is not "government-run healthcare". It doesn't even include a single-payer system, much less government-run hospitals. Using such language only shows that you don't understand the bill or the healthcare system.

It is government-run healthcare. It is single-payer by proxy. It gives the government far more control over the health insurance companies, turning them into utilities, appendages of the government, in exchange for guaranteed profits (mandating everyone buy their product). It also makes the inroads for introduction of a public option later on and then moving to full-on single-payer.

 

[Nebula815]

This seems to be the general inclination with the American public. People seem to think that this bill is going to give our health care system a complete overhaul when its really just providing a very basic public option and mandating coverage for almost every citizen. Yet, people seem the think they are getting their "freedomz" taken away from them and we are on our way to a socialist government (but to arrogant to realize we haven't been capitalist for a long time).

What do you call it if the government mandates you purchase a company's product?

The car insurance argument doesn't hold, because no one is forced to purchase a car. And the argument that everyone purchasing health insurance would be better is a separate argument from whether or not you should force people to purchase health insurance.

I've recently had many conversations with peers about this subject and they all call me an ignorant liar when I tell them Hawaii has had a system much like this for years and just call me stupid when I tell them it actually works!

Hawaii is very tiny, and from my understanding, their system has been a horrendous failure. Furthermore, even if it works, one tiny example is not enough. It failed in Tennessee and it failed in Massachussettes, and it has failed in the forms of Medicare and Medicaid.

Like I said, the British system, which the Democrats want to copy, has regulations regarding junk lawsuits. Democrats will not enact tort reform to copy that here. Enacting such massive legislation on the national level is the height of irresponsibility, arrogance, and ideology.

I find the amount (and inanity) of the negative responses towards this health care bill is just more evidence of the "idiocracy" in this country and ultimately an omen that the prowess of the US will soon fall.

So you're okay with a bill that will most likely bankrupt the nation, mandates people purchase a product (sorry we aren't Europe, mandating people purchase something just because "it's better for the society" is not the American way), and gives the government control over 1/6 of the economy?

It also will make the way for single-payer, that is the goal.

What I find amazing is Democrats had to ram the bill through because they flat-out lost the debate on it. President Obama himself was lost completely in terms of how to defend it. All we've been seeing and hearing is this man talk, talk, talk for the last two or three years, with zero substance on healthcare, and when it came down to it, he just rammed it through.

 

[Nebula815]

My AP European History teacher (a wise man) tells us that the favorite part of government for conservatives, the military, is possibly the most socialist part of government.

Irony!

So, yeah, we're already socialist. How much could a little more hurt?

Healthcare is 17% of GDP.

The military is 5%.

And defense spending can be curtailed rather easily when you need it to. But trying getting rid of a government agency that was created by your predecessor. GOOD LUCK!

 

[WhoWee]

Government programs growing larger than they originally intended? How is that a sign of failure?

Your information on social security is wrong. It's actually taking in more money than it spends as we speak. Current predictions on the aging trend of the US predict it starts hitting a negative cash flow around 2020 and then runs out of its 2 trillion dollar reserve sometime around 2040 or 2050. And that's assuming that nothing is changed, for example the cap on social security taxes.

You need to support the claims you've made in your post with links to current sources.

You do realize that Government workers don't actually contribute to the tax base (because they are paid FROM taxes). You also realize the size, scope and power of the IRS is going to be increased by this Bill?

 

[WhoWee]

It's been deemed "Obamacare", and the "IRS Expansion Act of 2010"
http://camp.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=177007

Mandating coverage and fining people (enforcement by an expanded IRS) who don't have coverage indicates the end of a free society.

If you plan to have a successful career - you should be very concerned.

 

[whybother]

Mandating coverage and fining people (enforcement by an expanded IRS) who don't have coverage indicates the end of a free society.

If you plan to have a successful career - you should be very concerned.

Yeah, because helping everyone have the means to take care of themselves is pretty much the end of society. /sarcasm

 

[Office_Shredder]

You need to support the claims you've made in your post with links to current sources.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html

Assets at end of year, 2009: 2.5 trillion dollars

You do realize that Government workers don't actually contribute to the tax base (because they are paid FROM taxes). You also realize the size, scope and power of the IRS is going to be increased by this Bill?

How is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

 

[MotoH]

This seems to be the general inclination with the American public. People seem to think that this bill is going to give our health care system a complete overhaul when its really just providing a very basic public option and mandating coverage for almost every citizen. Yet, people seem the think they are getting their "freedomz" taken away from them and we are on our way to a socialist government (but to arrogant to realize we haven't been capitalist for a long time).

I've recently had many conversations with peers about this subject and they all call me an ignorant liar when I tell them Hawaii has had a system much like this for years and just call me stupid when I tell them it actually works!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/health/policy/17hawaii.html

I find the amount (and inanity) of the negative responses towards this health care bill is just more evidence of the "idiocracy" in this country and ultimately an omen that the prowess of the US will soon fall.

The high food prices just aren't related to them being in BFE. They have to pay for "low" health care some how, and that comes out of taxes.

 

[MotoH]

Also. As I said before,

You are a PhD student, 27 years old. You are no longer on your parents health care plan, and you aren't making ends meat. (as I have heard from many-a-PhD student) Not only can you not afford to get health care, but you will get fined because you don't have health care!

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html

Assets at end of year, 2009: 2.5 trillion dollars

Are you serious?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033003291.html

"The Treasury Department has for decades borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund to finance government operations. If it is no longer able to do so, it could be forced to borrow an additional $700 billion over the next decade from China, Japan and other investors. And at some point, perhaps as early as 2017, according to the CBO, the Treasury would have to start repaying the billions it has borrowed from the trust fund over the past 25 years, driving the nation further into debt or forcing Congress to raise taxes.

The new forecast is fueling calls for reform of the Social Security system from conservative analysts, who say it underscores the financial fragility of a system that provides a primary source of income for millions of Americans.

"It suggests we better get working on Social Security and stop burying our heads in the sand," said Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. "The Social Security trust fund, though technically in balance, is going to put huge pressures on taxpayers very soon."

Many liberal analysts reject the notion that Social Security needs fixing, arguing that the system is projected to fully support payments to beneficiaries through 2041 -- so long as the Treasury repays its debts. But they agree that the news is not good for the federal budget.

"This is not a problem for Social Security, it's a problem for fiscal responsibility," said Christian Waller, a public policy professor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. He said the new estimates would force President Obama and his budget director, Peter Orszag, "to stay on track in what they have set out to do, and that is rein in deficits."

The CBO, Congress's nonpartisan budget scorekeeper, released its most recent estimates for the Social Security trust fund last week as part of its final budget projections for the fiscal year that begins in October.

The trust fund has long taken in more in revenue from payroll taxes and other sources than it pays out in benefits. Last August, the CBO predicted that surplus would exceed $80 billion this year and next, then rise to around $90 billion before slowly evaporating by 2020. But the rapidly deteriorating economy -- particularly the loss of more than 4 million jobs -- has driven those numbers much lower much faster, with the surplus expected to hit $16 billion this year and only $3 billion next year, then vanish entirely by 2017.

CBO is not the official arbiter of the trust fund's health; that task falls to the Social Security trustees, a panel of Cabinet secretaries and others who are expected to issue a new report later this spring. In his budget, Obama predicted that the trust fund surplus would hit $30 billion this year, according to Mark Lassiter, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration.

But that number, too, is far less than the $80 billion the trustees had forecast for 2009. In addition to declining revenues, Lassiter said the system is likely to incur higher expenses due to big jumps in new retirement and disability claims. Both are expected to rise by at least 12 percent this year compared with 2008.

"There are some people who are, in fact, delaying retirement" because the plunging stock market took a huge bite out of their retirement accounts, Lassiter said. "But the stronger trend is that people who are losing a job are looking for other sources of income. And if you're of retirement age, you're going to go ahead and file for Social Security benefits."

Though Obama has pledged to address the precarious financial situation of Social Security, the administration currently has no plans to do so. Under pressure from congressional Democrats who argued that Social Security should not be at the top of the new administration's agenda, the White House last month dropped a proposal to name a task force to reexamine the program.

During the campaign, Obama proposed applying payroll taxes to annual earnings over $250,000 help fund Social Security after the surplus vanishes. With the new numbers, some analysts said, the president might be forced to step up the timetable.

"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Now they've essentially got to pay their own way, at least a little more fully.

"Instead of Social Security subsidizing the rest of the budget," he said, "the rest of the budget will have to subsidize Social Security." "

 

[spacemanspiff]

As a small business owner I must take issue with any policy that requires me to either pay health insurance premiums for my employees, pay a penalty for not providing the insurance, or decrease the number of employees to the lowest possible level in order to survive in an already struggling economy. Hummmmm! Which one should I choose?

- Dwayne Strickland

This bill will create temp job loss?

Insurers will no longer be able to set rates or exclude coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and can vary premiums only by geographic location, age, and tobacco use.

- CNN

Do you think an insurer will look at an app. See a person with cancer and 65 years old. Then tell them to pay $1000 a month... because they are 65 years old. Also I wonder how many of the 32 million uninsured are in high risk locations, are old and smoke. What if it is half? They aren't helped at all. What a waste.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep, have you actually been to Europe?

Many times and for extended periods.

You're making it sound like the average lifestyle there is third world compared to the glorious bounty we have in America.

Lets not throw strawmen around. I made no such generalization.

Also, your random 10% unemployment stat is ridiculous: it's not true for many European nations with universal healthcare (UK, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, just to name a few from browsing that website)

That stat is for France, a good place to start if you want to compare large countries. Norway, has less population than some American cities and is oil rich, so I don't think it makes sense to compare w/ the 300 million in the US, do you?

 

[mheslep]

The first thing to understand is that this is not "government-run healthcare". It doesn't even include a single-payer system, much less government-run hospitals. Using such language only shows that you don't understand the bill or the healthcare system.

The contrary is true for the first and last sentences. The government will now run the insurances companies as utilities, and thus the providers. Even if the government is not the payer, just as for utilities they will be told who to service and what they can charge. Eventually all of the health plans will be specified by the government on the exchanges.

 

[Topher925]

Even if the government is not the payer, just as for utilities they will be told who to service and what they can charge.

What part of the bill says this? From what I have read, the bill only states that insurance companies can not deny people for pre-existing conditions, they have to come up with some other excuse. The bill also includes no cost regulation for insurance companies either, it only states that insurance companies can only determine costs for age, location, and activities that have negative health effects such as smoking.

 

[Astronuc]

I can't get excited about this.

I received an email from 'Organizing for America', which is purportely a 'Thank you' note from Mr. Obama. It states "Because of you, every American will finally be guaranteed high quality, affordable health care coverage".

Well - firstly - it didn't happen because of me.

And -secondly - that statement is nonsens. Millions of Americans get left behind. There is not such guarantee of 'high quality' health care, even if one could afford it.

This is so mind bogglingly disingenous - if just not downright dishonest!

 

[MotoH]

Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill

By CBS News Capitol Hill Producers Jill Jackson and John Nolen
Cost:

* $940 billion over ten years.



Deficit:

* Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. That is an updated CBO estimate. Their first preliminary estimate said it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Would reduce the deficit by $1.2 billion dollars in the second ten years.



Coverage:

* Would expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.


Health Insurance Exchanges:

* The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level.
* Separate exchanges would be created for small businesses to purchase coverage -- effective 2014.
* Funding available to states to establish exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015.


Subsidies:

* Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale.


Federal Poverty Level for family of four is $22,050

Paying for the Plan:

* Medicare Payroll tax on investment income -- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).
* Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan.
* Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.


Medicare:

* Closes the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" by 2020. Seniors who hit the donut hole by 2010 will receive a $250 rebate.
* Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap will receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs. The bill also includes $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.


Medicaid:

* Expands Medicaid to include 133 percent of federal poverty level which is $29,327 for a family of four.
* Requires states to expand Medicaid to include childless adults starting in 2014.
* Federal Government pays 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016.
* Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.


Insurance Reforms:

* Six months after enactment, insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition.
* Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions.
* Insurance companies must allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans through age 26.


Abortion:

* The bill segregates private insurance premium funds from taxpayer funds. Individuals would have to pay for abortion coverage by making two separate payments, private funds would have to be kept in a separate account from federal and taxpayer funds.
* No health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage. States could pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering abortion coverage through the exchange.


**Separately, anti-abortion Democrats worked out language with the White House on an executive order that would state that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother. (Read more here)


Individual Mandate:

* In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.


Employer Mandate:

* Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...46-503544.html"

There you go, this is the jist of what the bill is.

 

[Dembadon]

Don't get me started on incompetant regulators. The crook Bernie Madoff was investigated by the SEC 8 times! Bernie Madoff then showed the results of these investigations to his investors as proof of his legitimacy! Of course, the left will never look at that. Nothing to see here. Just move along, sir.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/madoff-chasers-dug-for-years/story-e6frg90x-1111118484476

In my opinion as well this is Marxism. They want us to adopt socialism by selling it to us as medicine.

You've been paying for social security and medicare for years! Why complain about socialism now?

What about the fire department, the police force, the military, veteran care programs, public school systems, et cetera? Where is the uproar regarding these socialistic concepts?

I'm not saying I agree with the recent reform to health care, but it's silly to reject something just because it is congruent with socialistic concepts. Do people honestly think that this nation is fully capitalistic?

 

[MotoH]

You've been paying for social security and medicare for years! Why complain about socialism now?

What about the fire department, the police force, the military, veteran care programs, public school systems, et cetera? Where is the uproar regarding these socialistic concepts?

I'm not saying I agree with the recent reform to health care, but it's silly to reject something just because it is congruent with socialistic concepts. Do people honestly think that this nation is fully capitalistic?

Voluntary in most parts of the United States.

 

[spacemanspiff]

* In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.

I am willing to bet that the majority of the 32 million uninsured are low income people. uh oh

I'm not saying I agree with the recent reform to health care, but it's silly to reject something just because it is congruent with socialistic concepts. Do people honestly think that this nation is fully capitalistic?

I think the vast majority are for universal healthcare or atleast some kind of reform. They are just against this problem filled bill.

 

[turbo]

Voluntary in most parts of the United States.

Paying for SS, Medicare, fire protection, police departments is not voluntary anywhere in the US. I have no children, yet over 50% of my town property taxes paid for education. Nothing voluntary in that.

 

[mheslep]

What part of the bill says this? From what I have read, the bill only states that insurance companies can not deny people for pre-existing conditions, they have to come up with some other excuse.

Well I'm not sure how to respond to this:

The bill also includes no cost regulation for insurance companies either, it only states that insurance companies can only determine costs for age, location, and activities that have negative health effects such as smoking.

as I read the first and second clauses as contradictory. Anyway:

Information about Insurance Plan Expenditures, and a Rebate to Assure Value
o Each year, insurers will report the percentage of Americans’ premiums they spend on items other than health care costs, such as bureaucracy, marketing, or executive compensation.
o Americans will receive a rebate if their health insurer’s non-medical costs exceed 15 percent of premium costs in the group market or 20 percent in the small group and individual market. Using cost data from this year, rebates will begin in 2011 and the policy applies to all insurance plans.
[...]
Protection from Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Costs
o Insurance companies will abide by yearly caps on what they may charge beneficiaries for out-of-pocket expenses, like co-payments or co-insurance charges. This will ensure that Americans are not forced to file bankruptcy due to high health care costs.
 Notification and Justification of Premium Increases
o Insurers will be required to publicly disclose the amount of any premium increase prior to the increase taking effect, and to provide a justification for the increase. This will limit the industry’s current practice of hiking up insurance rates in order to push less healthy individuals and small businesses off their rolls.

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill54.pdf
http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill55.pdf

In addition to the above, you are correct that insurers are only allowed to consider age, family composition, geography, and tobacco use in adjusting their premiums, period; that they can not deny pre-existing conditions; that they can not have any lifetime caps on payments ($1million, $1billion, $1trillion, doesn't matter they have to pay).

Now recall my statement was the law makes the insurance companies into utilities, which the above confirms. They're by and large no longer in the business of assessing risk, though they'll make plenty of money just as utilities do and make big donations to politicians just as utilities do.

 

[mheslep]

Paying for SS, Medicare, fire protection, police departments is not voluntary anywhere in the US. ...

Fire protection is in many places.

 

[NeoDevin]

Fire protection is in many places.

Source? Given the potential damage to other buildings from an uncontrolled fire, I'm having a hard time believing this. (I could be mistaken though)

 

[turbo]

Source? Given the potential damage to other buildings from an uncontrolled fire, I'm having a hard time believing this. (I could be mistaken though)

Some high-end estates and large business may contract for private fire-protection, but the large businesses that I have worked with have mutual-aid agreements with public fire departments, as well. I haven't yet lived anywhere where your property taxes didn't pay for public fire departments.

 

[NeoDevin]

Some high-end estates and large business may contract for private fire-protection, but the large businesses that I have worked with have mutual-aid agreements with public fire departments, as well. I haven't yet lived anywhere where your property taxes didn't pay for public fire departments.

That's what I was thinking. There may be some options as far as getting private protection, but I don't expect there is anywhere you can opt out of it completely.

 

[MotoH]

For a long while, there was no rural fire dept. where I live, and you could opt to pay for the city fire dept to come out and save surrounding houses

 

[Galteeth]

What about the fire department, the police force, the military, veteran care programs, public school systems, et cetera? Where is the uproar regarding these socialistic concepts?

QUOTE]

There is uproar over these things.