When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
Aye, I’m about 98% sure it’s the 365th day (includes the Y1 day). This falls into line with the Health Care Task Force they are creating that is supposed to “research” and make recommendations for additional preventative care programs… *not* included in the current budget forecasts. This puppy isn’t even the entire picture, but by the end of the first year, they’ll be packing on the rest of it.
This is why I think there is a year’s grace period. They’re not done with mandates that may, or may not, affect what an employer must either offer, or contribute to anyway.
You see, if I’m reading Title III correctly, it appears every employer is mandated to offer coverage to both full and part time employees – the basics of which must meet the government minimum. They can do this via private plan, or thru the public gov’t plan. If he has a group plan, the employee still has the right to opt out and obtain a plan thru the Insurance Exchange. However the employer still must contribute to the “Health Choice Commissioner”, who deposits it in the “Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund”. Oh boy… another “trust fund” lockbox. NOT! LOL
This means that every employer who has a payroll annually of over $250K must either offer coverage, or pay into the government trust fund a certain percentage of they annual total payroll. In other words, another payroll tax. And this is going to significantly increase the cost of doing business.
I was reading about the “affordable premium amounts” (starts on pg 135). Someone might want to backcheck me, but it smells like it’s going to be based on a percentage of total household income as a ratio to the povery level figure (FPL). In other words neighbors in House A make $50K more annually than neighbors in House B. They are both on the public health plan, but neighbors be get the same coverage for less money because of their income level.
Anyone want to throw in here?
Every few days I try to go in and absorb more of the House monstrosity… and of course, get myself slash-my-wrists depressed! :0) (yes, that’s a joke, son…). So I suggest you keep those “daily distractions” a’rolling.
@MataHarley: That’s admirable that you and others have been reading this bill. But you know what is going to happen. The Dems will put out another huge amendment in the middle of the night before a vote actually takes place that will change everything around to the point that NO ONE, not even the people writing the changes, will understand all the implications.
It’s a good thing to expose the abomination that is the current bill. But what ’til we see how much worse it gets.
Aqua
14 years ago
@ GaffaUK
Yes to education. There are plenty of people, especially on the right, that believe the federal government’s role in the education system is way too much. I for one believe it should be left to the States. One of the great things about living in the States is the ability to move to another one if things in the one your currently reside suck. (check out California and New York, leaving in droves because of taxes). Let the States deal with education and abolish the Department of Education.
The military is run by the military, for the most part. Yes, they answer to civilian politicians. For the most part though, the military is self sufficient. Only when politicians try to make military strategy do things go very badly. When politicians follow the advice of the Joint Chiefs, things seem to run pretty smoothly.
The federal government is not very good at running anything.
Y1, Y2, ETC..—The terms ‘‘Y1’’ , ‘‘Y2’’,‘‘Y3’’, ‘‘Y4’’, ‘‘Y5’’, and similar subsequently numbered terms, mean 2013 and subsequent years, respectively.
Which is why the reference to a five year grace period, although in legal terms I believe Aye is right and the first day of Y1 is the first day of the program. Though, I can’t make heads or tails of this sentence from sec 102.b.1.A: “The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1“, so it’s up in the air.
@Aye:
As to the substance of your argument, which MataHarley has quite refuted in summary, but I’ll link into the actual bill. Here is Sec. 102.c.1 (pg. 19, line 1):
Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
In other words, private plans that are not grandfathered in can continue to exist within the Exchange. What is the Exchange? From the House summary:
The new Health Insurance Exchange creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers. It works with state insurance departments to set and enforce insurance reforms and consumer protections, facilitates enrollment, and administers affordability credits to help low‐ and middle‐income individuals and families purchase insurance. Over time, the Exchange will be opened to additional employers as another choice for covering their employees. States may opt to operate the Exchange in lieu of the national Exchange provided they follow the federal rules.
Do we have to go to Double Jeopardy or can you concede that new private plan enrollment is not explicitly banned by the bill?
triz, we may have to go thru capitalism 101 with you, I see.
No, the bill does not “ban” private insurers. What the bill does do is create a government plan to compete with a private plan.
Now ponder on this for awhile. The government plans, just like Medicare/Medicaid pay approx 62-75 cents on the dollar to doctors and hospitals for care. This does not cover their base costs, so they tack on the 25-38 cents they are losing onto the private market instead. (this is one arena for our increasing health costs, but not the only one). This bill does nothing to make up for the losses doctors and hospitals assume.
This also means there is no way that a private plan, equivalent to government plans, can compete when they are paying for services in full, *plus* making up for the loses of the government plans.
Now perhaps you’ll explain to us all what will happen when everyone moves over to the cheap government plans, and the private insurers go out of business. Just who will make up the loss from the shortage payment of services?
I’ll give you a hint… it’s the taxpayer.
Do they lay this out for the layman? Heck no… because they know they’d never go for it. So what they will accomplish is to destroy the private insurer, cut the payments and income to the hospitals and doctors. There will be fewer entering the business since they can’t make enough money to cover their expense costs… of which this bill does NOTHING, NADA, ZIP to correct.
This ain’t reform… this is disaster. Reform is lowering the expenses. And one of the first places they should start is the litigation, since E&O insurance and the battery of “unneeded” tests are all done to cover their butts in case of lawsuits. I repeat, this bill does nothing to lower the costs.. it just shafts the medical professionals and facilities with lowered pay, and starts a spiral of debt to the taxpayer that will never be able to be recouped.
@Aye Chihuahua: Trizz’s goal is like so many on the left: Not to illuminate an issue but to muddy the waters so thoroughly that most Americans throw up their hands in confusion and let Dems get away with their plan.
I’ve cited enough sources to show how damaging this bill is to the current health care freedoms Americans enjoy. Trizz has yet to present any credible sources to back up his arguments.
He’s just playing his little semantic game hoping no one notices.
Aye #40, the private insurers can enroll new people per the government plan’s criteria. The key words are “enroll in such coverage”… i.e. the old plans.
If they change any of the plans, co pays or alter plans (as most do yearly), they must then offer the government plan. And no doubt at a higher rate because they, unlike the government, will not be allowed to shaft the medical professionals and facilities. Thus they will be driven out of business because everyone will opt for the cheaper care with the template coverage.
As for the rest of the not so rosy scenario, see my above comment to triz on capitalism 101
Now, no one still addresses my burning question… i.e. is the government plan catering to the state with the most heavily regulated mandates? (i.e. MA, NY, NY, etal) They’d have to if they don’t want to roll over the 10th Amendment… yet again. This means that plans that were cheaper on one state will now have to cover more optional procedures than they used to…. which also drives their costs up.
Gaffa: Do you guys call your schools ’socialized education’ and your army ’socialized defence’? If government is so bad at running things then maybe it shouldn’t run anything.
We have private schools as an option, and their curriculum is not under control of the government. Those that are graduated must meet standardized tests for knowledge. We also have home schooling (at least for now… they’re trying to kill that too). All of these make it extremely different from a bill that is obviously constructed to create a single payer health care system… akin to no private schools and home schooling in the education realm.
And I’m not entirely convinced that public schools are constitutional anyway. Personally, I think the feds should be out of it, and it should be a state/local government endearvor, because it surely doesn’t fall in the feds power.
Military, as Mike said, is the prime purpose of the feds, along with regulating cash and intrastate/int’l trade. Even at that, we have local military in our Guard. I have no problems with them doing their constitutional duty and protecting our nation.
And yes, the government *is* so bad at running things they shouldn’t run anything but what was laid out in the Constitution. Everything else is, as far as my purist heart is concerned, an ugly web woven starting with the New Deal.
trizzlor
14 years ago
@Aye Chihuahua: If I mis-interpreted your statement – “private insurers will be prohibited from signing on new customers” to imply that the bill bans private insurers from enrolling new customers, then my apologies for this drawn-out argument. If we’re both on the same page that the bill has a system in place for individuals to purchase private plans (if they leave their job or become self-employed, for example) then you were correct all along.
@MataHarley: I think your econ 101 lesson would have to include an explanation for why so many other countries are able to offer a public option without losing the private sector. There’s no question that private health-care will have to change as a response to this: perhaps they’ll move towards luxury plans that offer niche benefits for those willing to pay more, or put more lobbying emphasis on tort reform rather than on securing regional monopolies. But the point is that private health insurance has had ample time to develop an effective solution but has instead coalesced to a model which marginalizes those that need insurance most – the need for Medicare for the elderly is a prime example of this. On a side note, while I trust your statistics, I’m curious to see how the 25-38c charge is calculated and levied – if you don’t mind posting a reference.
And since we’re talking about schools, I would like to point out that private and home-based schooling generally goes through an accreditation process (usually by the government, or a cabal of non-profits in the US) to ensure that the schools meet a minimum requirement. Even with stellar knowledge scores (SAT, GRE, etc.) it’s extremely difficult to pursue secondary education from an un-accredited school; furthermore, degree titles from unaccredited schools are illegal in many states. This doesn’t seem far off from the health-care policy.
And in the spirit of making inflammatory statements at the tail-end of a health-care discussion: I don’t really understand why it’s a matter of course that the government can monopolize, collectivize resources, and re-distribute wealth for the military but not for other facets of protecting the citizenry.
Perhaps you’d better read up on the history of Medicare and Medicaid, triz… ala Truman first started banging the social medicine drum back in ’45, and two decades of battles of “no” ensued until Johnson siged them into law. And who signed up first? Truman. First enrollee. At least he had the balls to take for himself what he advocated for the rest of the nation. Big difference with this group of snobs in Congress.
A lot of this social welfare for the elderly thought originated from the Great Depression , and the seniors finding themselves broke, and with no savings. That was a time when most assistance programs were functions of the states. Thus, Roosevelt and his introduction of SS, which was to include medical care.
Considering that the government has been robbing the taxpayer each paycheck since SS’s passage, including medical benefits, why would the private sector attempt to compete with what the government as long since agreed to offer as part of their “collection” of taxes? They did, however, provide umbrella packages to pick up where Medicare left off. So your thought that they “coalesced to a model which marginalizes those that need insurance most” is entirely ill conceived. They simply did not duplicate what the government has decided to provide, funded by what they have absconded for decades.
I’ve been working, and having deductions, since I was 15 years old. Frankly, I wish they had left me all that cash, because I will only see a pittance of it returned at best, as they decide how they want to dole out that which they robbed.
Have no idea what your point is about schools. My point to Gaffa is that there are other options competitive options to public schools, and therefore not totally socialized. I also stated I believe the feds have no business in the education department, and that it’s a local/states issue. Having a relative standard of education level, without actually dabbling in education, so that there is a consistency of measurement from state to state is not my issue.
And in your spirited “inflammatory statement”, I personally have never said that I support government monopolies, collecting of resources or redistribution of wealth for anything outside of their constitutional powers to regulate treasury and organize military for national security. So if you’re looking for a “that’s okay with you, why not this?” from me, you’ll be waiting a very long time.
“….why so many other countries are able to offer a public option without losing the private sector. There’s no question that private health-care will have to change as a response to this: perhaps they’ll move towards luxury plans that offer niche benefits for those willing to pay more”
Like, Great Britian? Do you think, in four years time, there will be enough health care professionals to take on the massive increase of patients the democrats are promising to fold into the system? As long as GB has had their program, they have not been able to solve that problem. Their citizens with private insurance still have to wait or go to another country. Also, as Mata mentioned above, the government will pay a percentage of doctor fees and healthcare costs, I see a percentage of doctors going Galt if this fiasco becomes law. All this, to cover 15 million uninsured poor.
I don’t really understand why it’s a matter of course that the government can monopolize, collectivize resources, and re-distribute wealth for the military but not for other facets of protecting the citizenry.
For one thing, when signing on the dotted line, our troops become property of Uncle Sam. Our government is definately not redistributing wealth in their case, they are taking care of their responsibility, honoring a contract. Also, these are the government owned citizens that are protecting the citizenry and their medical care leaves a lot to be desired.
Just wondering if you have ever had the opportunity to use the VA or a clinic or hospital on a military base. If so, perhaps you recall having to schedule appointments months from ahead and you better not miss it, then come the lines. I’ve spent hours with my father waiting in the pharmacy for his meds. When I was expecting, we weren’t allowed to even make the appointment until we were four months along. Then on appointment day, around 30 women at various stages of pregnancy were herded through a one sized fits all presentation of what to expect in the coming months, calorie intake, etc. what was good for one was good for all. We were in lines for blood work, and exams, then handed a cup and sent to the bathroom, all of us at the same time, I’ll never forget the visual and then, of course, the pharmacy thing for our vitamins.
After my first and only appointment, I went home, lived with my parents and went to my own doctor until my son was born.
But, it’s just the military, no names or faces, impersonal units that the government monopolizes, collects resources and redistributes wealth for. Kind of forgotten people until their body count can be used politically during a time of war or to politically point out that they might be getting something a private citizen isn’t. Getting back to that 15 million uninsured poor. They get the same treatment as our military, they just aren’t contributing anything for it.
For the most part though, the military is self sufficient
Paying taxes for the military is surely mandatory though and thus it isn’t self sufficient. Surely you can’t move from State to State and avoid paying for the military irrespective whether you agree with defence budgets or where the military are deployed. If there is so much suspiciously over the role of Federal Government – then why not have the States as seperate countries with a united military umbrella – for those States who wish to participate? I don’t think it would work as no doubt some states might not be that viable if left to their own devices. But that would be a logical conclusion for those of you who feel the Federal Government is too instrusive.
@GaffaUK: ” then why not have the States as seperate countries with a united military umbrella “
Good grief! Could you possibly stay ON TOPIC for ONCE?
Aqua
14 years ago
@ GaffaUK
Ok, I obviously worded that wrong. Provide for the common defense is part of our constitution. And don’t even start with the general welfare, that can be explained in the Federalists Papers. Comparing paying for the common defense of the country and a national healthcare system are so completely different, it doesn’t even merit the apples and oranges defense. No one person can take responsiblity for the common defense of the country. However, each and every person can take responsibility for their own healthcare. Taking money from the people and using it to provide for defense, is one thing. Taking money from the people and deciding what healthcare they get is socialism. And I stand by my statement that the department of education is also an act in socialism. Why? The same reason. The government claims it is giving money to the States for the purposes of education the people. Well, the government doesn’t have any money, it’s ours. So, taking our money and giving it back to us is like me taking your lawnmower and giving it to your neighbor. Your neighbor thinks I’m da bomb, you on the other hand think I suck.
Same thing with healthcare. Taking my money and giving it to someone else, no matter the reason, is socialist. We have safety nets in place. Instead of using those nets correctly, the democrats constantly use them for social engineering to prop up their voting base. When Obama wanted SCHIP passed, the democrats made republicans out to be monsters. Well, they passed a bill that would cover families making up to $83,000 a year, even if they had private health insurance. They also allowed illegal immigrants to be covered under SCHIP.
In regard to illegal immigrants – I think they should get squat except transport back to the border or nearest airport.
Personally I would like to pay as little tax as possible and decide how I should spend it. Yet of course there are practicalities – where putting money into a pool makes more sense. Defence is one such thing – as I believe is education and health. Now I’m not talking about the Dem’s healthplan specifically. Nor do I think private schooling or health should somehow be outlawed.
But it seems there are many who are more concerned about purely protecting their own healthplans than even seeing that it’s a problem when of the one of the world’s most richest nation even can’t provide basic medical insurance for one-sixth of it’s population. Do you really believe health should be optional? And irrespective whether the US federal government or whether the States individually organise education – do believe schooling should be optional?
Aqua
14 years ago
@ GaffaUK
You’re probably right, a lot of people do want to protect their healthcare plan. So, why shouldn’t they get to keep it without being penalized for having a good healthcare plan. You have to understand, to democrats, some pigs are more equal than others. The unions will get a free pass on all of this. And union healthcare plans are typically the best out there, bar none. But, if you’re a big business and you don’t have a union, but still provide your employees with great healthcare, you’re just greedy. Double standard? Hell yes. I personally believe we need some reform to the current system. I’m not happy with my healthcare plan. I pay a lot of money for some very basic services. But I work for a small company and the pool is very shallow. I’m not saying I don’t have a choice here, I could go work for a larger company if I so chose. The republicans have a couple of great ideas that are being tossed into the trash by the dems. Allowing association would help small businesses ban together to form a larger pool. Also, they have a way to help those that want insurance but can’t afford it get it. Most of that would come from fraud savings. There is currently 3% fraud in medicare and medicade. Compare that will insurance companies and credit card companies that have about .03% fraud. The best plan for reforming healthcare in my opinion is to keep what works and reform what doesn’t. Oh and that one-sixth number is bogus. Some of the younger generation chooses not to be insured, even if they can afford it. And the illegals are lumped into that number as well, because they use the emergency rooms and that is how they arrive at that number. They also count those that are temporarily without insurance because of a job change. That is something that needs to be reformed. Portability is something that should be a must.
@Aqua: I was watching Sen. John Kyl on Fox News Sunday yesterday. He pointed out a great number of ideas that Republicans had put forward to make health care more affordable and accessible. Every one of them was shot down by Democrats in party line votes.
The reason? The GOP ideas were market centered and didn’t involve large new government programs with control in Washington.
Aqua
14 years ago
@ Mike’s America
I saw that too. The most interesting and most telling amendment the republicans put forward that the democrats shot down was, no matter what else you do in the healthcare reform bill, promise you won’t ration care.
Discounting those covered by Medicare, non-citizens and those who can afford health insurance but choose not to take it there at least 15.6 million who are uninsured. I’m not sure why the 18-34 should be left to guard for themselves just because they are younger. Don’t young people get ill? So that still MILLIONS of people without insurance in a rich country. Also it has 9.3 million non-citizens included – it’s not clear whether these are illegal or not. I would imagine they are legal and surely those who pay taxes and are legal should also qualify? I certainly agree that illegal immigrants should not be covered unlike some.
I’m sure the GOP has put forward some good ideas and I’m not praising the specifics of the Dem’s plan – but has the GOP put forward any plan where health insurance is mandatory? I think health should be like car insurance – mandatory. Of course if you don’t agree with car insurance you don’t have to buy a car – but you can’t really avoid living. Nethertheless there are some serious issues like schooling & healthcare which are so basic that need to be covered.
ditto
14 years ago
They keep calling this “reform” of the health care system, but nearly everything I’ve heard and read on this seems to be mostly about the creation of a universal government health insurance system, with almost nothing about how they will reform health care. There is nothing about capping malpractice attorney fees. There is almost nothing said about reigning in health care insurance or patient bill gouging (AKA. padding) by clinics, hospitals etc. and all the other typical less than honest billing practices. It all seems to be about insuring that health care providers will have a guaranteed payer (the taxpayers) and for the most part keeping the current health care provider status-quo. (except for the stick-it-to private insurers regulations). It does nothing to create more health care system workers (which will be desperately needed to provide all this health care, else it can only create de-facto rationing of healthcare). And it totally ignores addressing the current illegal immigrant non-payment problem.
And besides all this, consider just how “affordable”, “effective” and “patient thoughtful” the current Medicare, Medicaid and VA programs are (All sarcasm intended.)
Looking at those three systems. Is it any wonder that the general public doesn’t believe all the Obama/Far-left/MSM hype? What is truly ludicrous is the claim that all this can be done without adding to the deficit. Who honestly believes that BS?
@ditto: Good point about Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. Who would want MORE of that?
trizzlor
14 years ago
Yes, the VA is so terrible that it’s consistently ranked higher in patient satisfaction over private care. I’m sure many of you are familiar with VA care, but a big part of the reason they do so well is because they have nearly life-long enrollment from a very early age and actually have incentive for preventive care. If you really want to see rationing, read this article on private contractors getting denied health-care after Iraq and compare that to veteran care:
A military audit deemed AIG’s premiums “unreasonably high.”
Insurance companies initially rejected 44 percent of claims from contractors involving serious injuries and more than half of all claims related to psychological stress, records show. As a result, civilians maimed or traumatized in the war zone often must wage lengthy court battles for medical care and benefits.
What do you expect the Secretary of the VA to say in a VA press release? I would bet you’ve never even been inside a VA Hospital, or talked with the patients or staff members. Oh, and I can give links too:
Aye, I’m about 98% sure it’s the 365th day (includes the Y1 day). This falls into line with the Health Care Task Force they are creating that is supposed to “research” and make recommendations for additional preventative care programs… *not* included in the current budget forecasts. This puppy isn’t even the entire picture, but by the end of the first year, they’ll be packing on the rest of it.
This is why I think there is a year’s grace period. They’re not done with mandates that may, or may not, affect what an employer must either offer, or contribute to anyway.
You see, if I’m reading Title III correctly, it appears every employer is mandated to offer coverage to both full and part time employees – the basics of which must meet the government minimum. They can do this via private plan, or thru the public gov’t plan. If he has a group plan, the employee still has the right to opt out and obtain a plan thru the Insurance Exchange. However the employer still must contribute to the “Health Choice Commissioner”, who deposits it in the “Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund”. Oh boy… another “trust fund” lockbox. NOT! LOL
This means that every employer who has a payroll annually of over $250K must either offer coverage, or pay into the government trust fund a certain percentage of they annual total payroll. In other words, another payroll tax. And this is going to significantly increase the cost of doing business.
I was reading about the “affordable premium amounts” (starts on pg 135). Someone might want to backcheck me, but it smells like it’s going to be based on a percentage of total household income as a ratio to the povery level figure (FPL). In other words neighbors in House A make $50K more annually than neighbors in House B. They are both on the public health plan, but neighbors be get the same coverage for less money because of their income level.
Anyone want to throw in here?
Every few days I try to go in and absorb more of the House monstrosity… and of course, get myself slash-my-wrists depressed! :0) (yes, that’s a joke, son…). So I suggest you keep those “daily distractions” a’rolling.
@MataHarley: That’s admirable that you and others have been reading this bill. But you know what is going to happen. The Dems will put out another huge amendment in the middle of the night before a vote actually takes place that will change everything around to the point that NO ONE, not even the people writing the changes, will understand all the implications.
It’s a good thing to expose the abomination that is the current bill. But what ’til we see how much worse it gets.
@ GaffaUK
Yes to education. There are plenty of people, especially on the right, that believe the federal government’s role in the education system is way too much. I for one believe it should be left to the States. One of the great things about living in the States is the ability to move to another one if things in the one your currently reside suck. (check out California and New York, leaving in droves because of taxes). Let the States deal with education and abolish the Department of Education.
The military is run by the military, for the most part. Yes, they answer to civilian politicians. For the most part though, the military is self sufficient. Only when politicians try to make military strategy do things go very badly. When politicians follow the advice of the Joint Chiefs, things seem to run pretty smoothly.
The federal government is not very good at running anything.
@MataHarley: A few clarifications.
From pg.14 ln 10:
Which is why the reference to a five year grace period, although in legal terms I believe Aye is right and the first day of Y1 is the first day of the program. Though, I can’t make heads or tails of this sentence from sec 102.b.1.A: “The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1“, so it’s up in the air.
@Aye:
As to the substance of your argument, which MataHarley has quite refuted in summary, but I’ll link into the actual bill. Here is Sec. 102.c.1 (pg. 19, line 1):
In other words, private plans that are not grandfathered in can continue to exist within the Exchange. What is the Exchange? From the House summary:
Do we have to go to Double Jeopardy or can you concede that new private plan enrollment is not explicitly banned by the bill?
triz, we may have to go thru capitalism 101 with you, I see.
No, the bill does not “ban” private insurers. What the bill does do is create a government plan to compete with a private plan.
Now ponder on this for awhile. The government plans, just like Medicare/Medicaid pay approx 62-75 cents on the dollar to doctors and hospitals for care. This does not cover their base costs, so they tack on the 25-38 cents they are losing onto the private market instead. (this is one arena for our increasing health costs, but not the only one). This bill does nothing to make up for the losses doctors and hospitals assume.
This also means there is no way that a private plan, equivalent to government plans, can compete when they are paying for services in full, *plus* making up for the loses of the government plans.
Now perhaps you’ll explain to us all what will happen when everyone moves over to the cheap government plans, and the private insurers go out of business. Just who will make up the loss from the shortage payment of services?
I’ll give you a hint… it’s the taxpayer.
Do they lay this out for the layman? Heck no… because they know they’d never go for it. So what they will accomplish is to destroy the private insurer, cut the payments and income to the hospitals and doctors. There will be fewer entering the business since they can’t make enough money to cover their expense costs… of which this bill does NOTHING, NADA, ZIP to correct.
This ain’t reform… this is disaster. Reform is lowering the expenses. And one of the first places they should start is the litigation, since E&O insurance and the battery of “unneeded” tests are all done to cover their butts in case of lawsuits. I repeat, this bill does nothing to lower the costs.. it just shafts the medical professionals and facilities with lowered pay, and starts a spiral of debt to the taxpayer that will never be able to be recouped.
@trizzlor:
Never once did I say that the bill “bans” private plan enrollment.
Again, you’re either being obtuse or you’re deliberately lying about what I have said.
@Aye Chihuahua: Trizz’s goal is like so many on the left: Not to illuminate an issue but to muddy the waters so thoroughly that most Americans throw up their hands in confusion and let Dems get away with their plan.
I’ve cited enough sources to show how damaging this bill is to the current health care freedoms Americans enjoy. Trizz has yet to present any credible sources to back up his arguments.
He’s just playing his little semantic game hoping no one notices.
Aye #40, the private insurers can enroll new people per the government plan’s criteria. The key words are “enroll in such coverage”… i.e. the old plans.
If they change any of the plans, co pays or alter plans (as most do yearly), they must then offer the government plan. And no doubt at a higher rate because they, unlike the government, will not be allowed to shaft the medical professionals and facilities. Thus they will be driven out of business because everyone will opt for the cheaper care with the template coverage.
As for the rest of the not so rosy scenario, see my above comment to triz on capitalism 101
Now, no one still addresses my burning question… i.e. is the government plan catering to the state with the most heavily regulated mandates? (i.e. MA, NY, NY, etal) They’d have to if they don’t want to roll over the 10th Amendment… yet again. This means that plans that were cheaper on one state will now have to cover more optional procedures than they used to…. which also drives their costs up.
We have private schools as an option, and their curriculum is not under control of the government. Those that are graduated must meet standardized tests for knowledge. We also have home schooling (at least for now… they’re trying to kill that too). All of these make it extremely different from a bill that is obviously constructed to create a single payer health care system… akin to no private schools and home schooling in the education realm.
And I’m not entirely convinced that public schools are constitutional anyway. Personally, I think the feds should be out of it, and it should be a state/local government endearvor, because it surely doesn’t fall in the feds power.
Military, as Mike said, is the prime purpose of the feds, along with regulating cash and intrastate/int’l trade. Even at that, we have local military in our Guard. I have no problems with them doing their constitutional duty and protecting our nation.
And yes, the government *is* so bad at running things they shouldn’t run anything but what was laid out in the Constitution. Everything else is, as far as my purist heart is concerned, an ugly web woven starting with the New Deal.
@Aye Chihuahua: If I mis-interpreted your statement – “private insurers will be prohibited from signing on new customers” to imply that the bill bans private insurers from enrolling new customers, then my apologies for this drawn-out argument. If we’re both on the same page that the bill has a system in place for individuals to purchase private plans (if they leave their job or become self-employed, for example) then you were correct all along.
@MataHarley: I think your econ 101 lesson would have to include an explanation for why so many other countries are able to offer a public option without losing the private sector. There’s no question that private health-care will have to change as a response to this: perhaps they’ll move towards luxury plans that offer niche benefits for those willing to pay more, or put more lobbying emphasis on tort reform rather than on securing regional monopolies. But the point is that private health insurance has had ample time to develop an effective solution but has instead coalesced to a model which marginalizes those that need insurance most – the need for Medicare for the elderly is a prime example of this. On a side note, while I trust your statistics, I’m curious to see how the 25-38c charge is calculated and levied – if you don’t mind posting a reference.
And since we’re talking about schools, I would like to point out that private and home-based schooling generally goes through an accreditation process (usually by the government, or a cabal of non-profits in the US) to ensure that the schools meet a minimum requirement. Even with stellar knowledge scores (SAT, GRE, etc.) it’s extremely difficult to pursue secondary education from an un-accredited school; furthermore, degree titles from unaccredited schools are illegal in many states. This doesn’t seem far off from the health-care policy.
And in the spirit of making inflammatory statements at the tail-end of a health-care discussion: I don’t really understand why it’s a matter of course that the government can monopolize, collectivize resources, and re-distribute wealth for the military but not for other facets of protecting the citizenry.
Perhaps you’d better read up on the history of Medicare and Medicaid, triz… ala Truman first started banging the social medicine drum back in ’45, and two decades of battles of “no” ensued until Johnson siged them into law. And who signed up first? Truman. First enrollee. At least he had the balls to take for himself what he advocated for the rest of the nation. Big difference with this group of snobs in Congress.
A lot of this social welfare for the elderly thought originated from the Great Depression , and the seniors finding themselves broke, and with no savings. That was a time when most assistance programs were functions of the states. Thus, Roosevelt and his introduction of SS, which was to include medical care.
Considering that the government has been robbing the taxpayer each paycheck since SS’s passage, including medical benefits, why would the private sector attempt to compete with what the government as long since agreed to offer as part of their “collection” of taxes? They did, however, provide umbrella packages to pick up where Medicare left off. So your thought that they “coalesced to a model which marginalizes those that need insurance most” is entirely ill conceived. They simply did not duplicate what the government has decided to provide, funded by what they have absconded for decades.
I’ve been working, and having deductions, since I was 15 years old. Frankly, I wish they had left me all that cash, because I will only see a pittance of it returned at best, as they decide how they want to dole out that which they robbed.
Have no idea what your point is about schools. My point to Gaffa is that there are other options competitive options to public schools, and therefore not totally socialized. I also stated I believe the feds have no business in the education department, and that it’s a local/states issue. Having a relative standard of education level, without actually dabbling in education, so that there is a consistency of measurement from state to state is not my issue.
And in your spirited “inflammatory statement”, I personally have never said that I support government monopolies, collecting of resources or redistribution of wealth for anything outside of their constitutional powers to regulate treasury and organize military for national security. So if you’re looking for a “that’s okay with you, why not this?” from me, you’ll be waiting a very long time.
@trizzlor:
Like, Great Britian? Do you think, in four years time, there will be enough health care professionals to take on the massive increase of patients the democrats are promising to fold into the system? As long as GB has had their program, they have not been able to solve that problem. Their citizens with private insurance still have to wait or go to another country. Also, as Mata mentioned above, the government will pay a percentage of doctor fees and healthcare costs, I see a percentage of doctors going Galt if this fiasco becomes law. All this, to cover 15 million uninsured poor.
For one thing, when signing on the dotted line, our troops become property of Uncle Sam. Our government is definately not redistributing wealth in their case, they are taking care of their responsibility, honoring a contract. Also, these are the government owned citizens that are protecting the citizenry and their medical care leaves a lot to be desired.
Just wondering if you have ever had the opportunity to use the VA or a clinic or hospital on a military base. If so, perhaps you recall having to schedule appointments months from ahead and you better not miss it, then come the lines. I’ve spent hours with my father waiting in the pharmacy for his meds. When I was expecting, we weren’t allowed to even make the appointment until we were four months along. Then on appointment day, around 30 women at various stages of pregnancy were herded through a one sized fits all presentation of what to expect in the coming months, calorie intake, etc. what was good for one was good for all. We were in lines for blood work, and exams, then handed a cup and sent to the bathroom, all of us at the same time, I’ll never forget the visual and then, of course, the pharmacy thing for our vitamins.
After my first and only appointment, I went home, lived with my parents and went to my own doctor until my son was born.
But, it’s just the military, no names or faces, impersonal units that the government monopolizes, collects resources and redistributes wealth for. Kind of forgotten people until their body count can be used politically during a time of war or to politically point out that they might be getting something a private citizen isn’t. Getting back to that 15 million uninsured poor. They get the same treatment as our military, they just aren’t contributing anything for it.
@Aqua
Paying taxes for the military is surely mandatory though and thus it isn’t self sufficient. Surely you can’t move from State to State and avoid paying for the military irrespective whether you agree with defence budgets or where the military are deployed. If there is so much suspiciously over the role of Federal Government – then why not have the States as seperate countries with a united military umbrella – for those States who wish to participate? I don’t think it would work as no doubt some states might not be that viable if left to their own devices. But that would be a logical conclusion for those of you who feel the Federal Government is too instrusive.
@GaffaUK: ” then why not have the States as seperate countries with a united military umbrella “
Good grief! Could you possibly stay ON TOPIC for ONCE?
@ GaffaUK
Ok, I obviously worded that wrong. Provide for the common defense is part of our constitution. And don’t even start with the general welfare, that can be explained in the Federalists Papers. Comparing paying for the common defense of the country and a national healthcare system are so completely different, it doesn’t even merit the apples and oranges defense. No one person can take responsiblity for the common defense of the country. However, each and every person can take responsibility for their own healthcare. Taking money from the people and using it to provide for defense, is one thing. Taking money from the people and deciding what healthcare they get is socialism. And I stand by my statement that the department of education is also an act in socialism. Why? The same reason. The government claims it is giving money to the States for the purposes of education the people. Well, the government doesn’t have any money, it’s ours. So, taking our money and giving it back to us is like me taking your lawnmower and giving it to your neighbor. Your neighbor thinks I’m da bomb, you on the other hand think I suck.
Same thing with healthcare. Taking my money and giving it to someone else, no matter the reason, is socialist. We have safety nets in place. Instead of using those nets correctly, the democrats constantly use them for social engineering to prop up their voting base. When Obama wanted SCHIP passed, the democrats made republicans out to be monsters. Well, they passed a bill that would cover families making up to $83,000 a year, even if they had private health insurance. They also allowed illegal immigrants to be covered under SCHIP.
@Aqua
In regard to illegal immigrants – I think they should get squat except transport back to the border or nearest airport.
Personally I would like to pay as little tax as possible and decide how I should spend it. Yet of course there are practicalities – where putting money into a pool makes more sense. Defence is one such thing – as I believe is education and health. Now I’m not talking about the Dem’s healthplan specifically. Nor do I think private schooling or health should somehow be outlawed.
But it seems there are many who are more concerned about purely protecting their own healthplans than even seeing that it’s a problem when of the one of the world’s most richest nation even can’t provide basic medical insurance for one-sixth of it’s population. Do you really believe health should be optional? And irrespective whether the US federal government or whether the States individually organise education – do believe schooling should be optional?
@ GaffaUK
You’re probably right, a lot of people do want to protect their healthcare plan. So, why shouldn’t they get to keep it without being penalized for having a good healthcare plan. You have to understand, to democrats, some pigs are more equal than others. The unions will get a free pass on all of this. And union healthcare plans are typically the best out there, bar none. But, if you’re a big business and you don’t have a union, but still provide your employees with great healthcare, you’re just greedy. Double standard? Hell yes. I personally believe we need some reform to the current system. I’m not happy with my healthcare plan. I pay a lot of money for some very basic services. But I work for a small company and the pool is very shallow. I’m not saying I don’t have a choice here, I could go work for a larger company if I so chose. The republicans have a couple of great ideas that are being tossed into the trash by the dems. Allowing association would help small businesses ban together to form a larger pool. Also, they have a way to help those that want insurance but can’t afford it get it. Most of that would come from fraud savings. There is currently 3% fraud in medicare and medicade. Compare that will insurance companies and credit card companies that have about .03% fraud. The best plan for reforming healthcare in my opinion is to keep what works and reform what doesn’t. Oh and that one-sixth number is bogus. Some of the younger generation chooses not to be insured, even if they can afford it. And the illegals are lumped into that number as well, because they use the emergency rooms and that is how they arrive at that number. They also count those that are temporarily without insurance because of a job change. That is something that needs to be reformed. Portability is something that should be a must.
@Aqua: I was watching Sen. John Kyl on Fox News Sunday yesterday. He pointed out a great number of ideas that Republicans had put forward to make health care more affordable and accessible. Every one of them was shot down by Democrats in party line votes.
The reason? The GOP ideas were market centered and didn’t involve large new government programs with control in Washington.
@ Mike’s America
I saw that too. The most interesting and most telling amendment the republicans put forward that the democrats shot down was, no matter what else you do in the healthcare reform bill, promise you won’t ration care.
@Aqua
I think the number is technically correct – as good as you can get to an accurate level. However you are right insomuch that it is more complicated.
Check out the below where this guy did an estimated breakdown.
Discounting those covered by Medicare, non-citizens and those who can afford health insurance but choose not to take it there at least 15.6 million who are uninsured. I’m not sure why the 18-34 should be left to guard for themselves just because they are younger. Don’t young people get ill? So that still MILLIONS of people without insurance in a rich country. Also it has 9.3 million non-citizens included – it’s not clear whether these are illegal or not. I would imagine they are legal and surely those who pay taxes and are legal should also qualify? I certainly agree that illegal immigrants should not be covered unlike some.
I’m sure the GOP has put forward some good ideas and I’m not praising the specifics of the Dem’s plan – but has the GOP put forward any plan where health insurance is mandatory? I think health should be like car insurance – mandatory. Of course if you don’t agree with car insurance you don’t have to buy a car – but you can’t really avoid living. Nethertheless there are some serious issues like schooling & healthcare which are so basic that need to be covered.
They keep calling this “reform” of the health care system, but nearly everything I’ve heard and read on this seems to be mostly about the creation of a universal government health insurance system, with almost nothing about how they will reform health care. There is nothing about capping malpractice attorney fees. There is almost nothing said about reigning in health care insurance or patient bill gouging (AKA. padding) by clinics, hospitals etc. and all the other typical less than honest billing practices. It all seems to be about insuring that health care providers will have a guaranteed payer (the taxpayers) and for the most part keeping the current health care provider status-quo. (except for the stick-it-to private insurers regulations). It does nothing to create more health care system workers (which will be desperately needed to provide all this health care, else it can only create de-facto rationing of healthcare). And it totally ignores addressing the current illegal immigrant non-payment problem.
And besides all this, consider just how “affordable”, “effective” and “patient thoughtful” the current Medicare, Medicaid and VA programs are (All sarcasm intended.)
Looking at those three systems. Is it any wonder that the general public doesn’t believe all the Obama/Far-left/MSM hype? What is truly ludicrous is the claim that all this can be done without adding to the deficit. Who honestly believes that BS?
@suek This is the official definition of “Resident Alien”: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
@ditto: Good point about Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. Who would want MORE of that?
Yes, the VA is so terrible that it’s consistently ranked higher in patient satisfaction over private care. I’m sure many of you are familiar with VA care, but a big part of the reason they do so well is because they have nearly life-long enrollment from a very early age and actually have incentive for preventive care. If you really want to see rationing, read this article on private contractors getting denied health-care after Iraq and compare that to veteran care:
@trizzlor #74
What do you expect the Secretary of the VA to say in a VA press release? I would bet you’ve never even been inside a VA Hospital, or talked with the patients or staff members. Oh, and I can give links too:
Problems at VA treatment sites persist
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/11/two_years_later_problems_at_va_treatment_sites_persist/
American Legion criticizes VA treatment of soldiers wounded in Iraq, Afghanistan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868458/posts
After 58 years at their Ninth Avenue site, construction on a long-awaited VA facility in Aurora will thankfully begin in June.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11954782
Waits Grow at San Diego VA Hospital
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2007/may/09/waits-grow-at-san-diego-va-hospital/
Veterans wait to see if VA will pay for endoscopic errors
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090703/NEWS01/907030350/-1/ARCHIVE01/Veterans+wait+to+see++if+VA+will+pay+for+endoscopic+errors
Veterans hospitals play by own rules
http://www.mississippiwebsite.com/va_article.htm
Doctor says VA hospital has 18-month backlog on some surgeries
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/05/09/news/top_stories/12_00_795_8_07.txt
VA hospital in Salisbury may end surgery, ER
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/355442.html
Arizona Veterans Navigate a Medical Maze
http://mitchell.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=81
More Veterans Come Forward Reporting Medical Malpractice
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/features/veterans-complaints.html
At V.A. hospital, a rogue cancer unit
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31470106/
Told to wait, a Marine dies
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/11/told_to_wait_a_marine_dies/
Walter Reed hospital scandal ‘hits at the heartstrings of America’
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/06/MNG71OG4NQ1.DTL
Army secretary quits in wake of hospital scandal
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/02/army.secretary/index.html
‘It Is Just Not Walter Reed’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401394.html
Human experiments scandal at Arkansas VA hospital unearthed
http://southernstudies.org/2008/08/human-experiments-scandal-at-arkansas.html
Veterans Malpractice: Will More Money Help?
http://blog.worldvillage.com/business/veterans_malpractice_will_more_money_help.html
And don’t forget this one: Obama Admin Backs Off Making Vets Pay for VA Treatment
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/03/obama-admin-backs-off-making-vets-pay-for-va-treatment.html