Health Care Reform PASSED!!! Now what? by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
As to how the poor and unemployed will pay, as I understand it there will be programs and subsidies to reimburse them or to pay their premiums outright. I might be wrong on that, but that was one of the things I heard mentioned.

Indeed:

The cutoff level would be an income of four times the federal poverty level. For one person, that’s about $44,000 a year. For a family of four, the comparable figure is about $88,000.

Subsidies would be figured on a sliding scale, with those who make less getting a bigger boost and those nearer the top getting a smaller one.

The formula is pretty complicated. Basically, though, people who make three or four times the poverty level would get enough federal money so that they would not have to pay more than about 10 percent of their income for a decent health insurance package.

People who make less would have to pay a smaller slice of their income for coverage. For instance, individuals who make about $14,000, and four-person families with incomes of about $29,000, would not have to pay more than 3 to 4 percent of their incomes for insurance.

And those who make even less – under 133 percent of the federal poverty level – would be able to enroll in a newly expanded Medicaid program.

The federal subsidy would go straight to the insurer. It would look like a discount on the policy to the customer.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0320/Health-care-reform-bil
l-101-Who-gets-subsidized-insurance

How is this paid for?

Higher Medicare taxes on rich people

If you are an individual making more than $200,000 a year, or a married couple making more than $250,000 a year, get ready to pay more for your Medicare if health care reform passes.

First of all, your Medicare Part A (that’s hospital insurance) tax rate would be increased by 0.9 percent, to 2.35 percent. Second, the bill creates an entirely new tax of 3.8 percent on unearned income (dividends, interest, stuff like that) for people in those same income brackets.

The good news is that this would not take effect until Jan. 1, 2013. And it is a big money raiser, truth be told. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this would bring in $210 billion between 2013 and 2019.

New tax on expensive health insurance

They used to call this the “Cadillac tax,” but it’s been pared back enough so it might better be called the “Chevy with leather and A/C” tax.

The health care bill would impose an excise tax on insurers of employer-sponsored health plans that cost more than $10,200 annually for individual coverage, or $27,500 annually for family coverage. The tax in question would be 40 percent of the cost of the plan that exceeds those dollar thresholds.

This tax would not kick in until 2018. The JCT figures it would bring in around $32 billion in its first two years.

Fees on health care industries

The Obama administration figures it is only fair to slap some fees on health care industries, since they’d be getting lots of new customers if health care reform passes. So after negotiations with some big sectors, the White House struck a number of deals.

* Drug manufacturers would pay the US a total of $16 billion between 2011 and 2019.
* Health insurers would pay $47 billion over the same period.
* Medical device manufacturers would pay a 2.9 percent excise tax on the sale of any of their wares, beginning Jan. 1, 2013.

The tanning tax

OK, it’s not a big money raiser, but we could not resist mentioning that health care reform would establish a tax of 10 percent on indoor tanning services. (Outdoor tanning services remain untaxed, of course.) This would raise $2.7 billion between 2010 and 2019.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0321/Health-care-reform-bil
l-101-Who-will-pay-for-reform

Yes, this means that if you're wealthy or you want extra fancy special insurance, you must also help fund health care for the poor. Some hysterics call this socialism. I call it a good idea. Kind of along these lines: If you can afford a 58' yacht, you'll need to buy a 56' yacht instead and contribute the money you didn't spend to building several housing complexes for the poor. I have no problem with that, though the rich might. I mean, I guess it could be humiliating to get shorted those two feet of prime yacht space. What will the Rockefellers and Peabodys think?

Oh, how the rich must suffer!

ETA: Sarge, if you're around - check that last part about fees paid by insurers. You really think they wanted this bill?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 6:46 AM

OPPYH

It was getting scary. Can the health care reform actually be worse? Doubt it.
-------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 6:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Can the health care reform actually be worse? Doubt it.

That's how I see it.

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 7:14 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I'm not sure it's that way in every state - we pay for our employees insurance because we think it's the right thing to do, not because we have to.

Subsidies and programs to help those below a certain income - I've heard talk of that too and it's one reason why I'm trying (poorly) to not leap to any negative conclusions. It also sounds like a beaurocratic nightmare, um, potentially.

Piz, I think I failed to make my point succinctly. "We" pay for employee insurance because other employers do, for a great part of the country and for many industries. It's not that it's legally required by one state or another - it's just a de facto requirement if you want to attract decent employees. Imagine a software design firm that offered ZERO benefits that weren't legally required, and only offered the same wages as those companies who offer far more benefits. How many would apply to work there, and how long would they continue to work there before trying to go to greener pastures?

My employer offers me healthcare coverage because that was part of the package she needed to offer me to hire me. Why? Because I wasn't looking to move DOWN the economic ladder, and those were the benefits I had at my previous job.

If you've ever spoken to anyone who does medical billing under the current system(s), they can tell you all about the bureaucratic nightmares.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 7:25 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I'm not sure it's that way in every state - we pay for our employees insurance because we think it's the right thing to do, not because we have to.

Subsidies and programs to help those below a certain income - I've heard talk of that too and it's one reason why I'm trying (poorly) to not leap to any negative conclusions. It also sounds like a beaurocratic nightmare, um, potentially.

Piz, I think I failed to make my point succinctly. "We" pay for employee insurance because other employers do, for a great part of the country and for many industries. It's not that it's legally required by one state or another - it's just a de facto requirement if you want to attract decent employees. Imagine a software design firm that offered ZERO benefits that weren't legally required, and only offered the same wages as those companies who offer far more benefits. How many would apply to work there, and how long would they continue to work there before trying to go to greener pastures?

My employer offers me healthcare coverage because that was part of the package she needed to offer me to hire me. Why? Because I wasn't looking to move DOWN the economic ladder, and those were the benefits I had at my previous job.

If you've ever spoken to anyone who does medical billing under the current system(s), they can tell you all about the bureaucratic nightmares.

Gotcha, and agree with your characterization of how it's used in varying degrees, and especially for higher paying jobs. Making it mandatory though, that's just going to grind those that don't offer it now. There are plenty of "unskilled" jobs - waiters I'm thinking - that will suddenly have to be covered? Things are tight - maybe not so bad by 2014, but that's a pile of money that they'll need to come up with... if this is true!

Yes, billing depts - bad to be in one and bad to deal with one - and I'm thinking that this will be yet another mountainous layer of forms to be shuffled so you can just get your foot bandaged...

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 7:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Color me surprised to find out that Rappy thinks corporations aren't part of the private sector...

Color me surprised to find out that Kwickie thinks corporations are part of the Gov't.

Dumbass, there won't BE any HC corporations in a few years. THAT'S THE GORRAM POINT!

How fucking stupid can you be ? Did you even LISTEN to the bags of wind / Democrats?

Of course not. You're already camped out by your mail box for that ObamaCard you've waited all these years to have.

Tell ya what, "genius" - How's about you pull up the SPECIFIC pages, paragraphs, sections, and clauses that SPECIFICALLY outlaw all private healthcare corporations and mandate that ONLY the government shall be allowed to provide or administer health care, or admit that you don't have a clue what the fuck you're talking about, and you've been duped by the usual fucknut Republican talking points that got rammed down your throat stapled to the end of Limbaugh's cock?

Post 'em up - and BE SPECIFIC.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

Still eagerly awaiting Rappy's response pointing out the SPECIFIC language in the bill that would outlaw all corporations and turn them over to the government, or that would turn over the entirety of the healthcare system to the government and would outlaw private insurance companies.

I highly doubt such information will be forthcoming, but this is the second time I've asked for such specifics. Seems like if you're going to make such pronouncements about such things, that they're going to destroy the country and give away our liberty and cause terrorist attacks and the like, you'd at least go to the trouble to provide specific cites to back up such claims.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 7:29 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
As to how the poor and unemployed will pay, as I understand it there will be programs and subsidies to reimburse them or to pay their premiums outright. I might be wrong on that, but that was one of the things I heard mentioned.
Indeed:

The cutoff level would be an income of four times the federal poverty level. For one person, that’s about $44,000 a year. For a family of four, the comparable figure is about $88,000.

Ahhh, thx M4P - that's a very generous cutoff number btw, glad to read that. See, this is why I didn't jump to any negative conclusions! Looks like I can stop worrying about waiters too.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Gotcha, and agree with your characterization of how it's used in varying degrees, and especially for higher paying jobs. Making it mandatory though, that's just going to grind those that don't offer it now. There are plenty of "unskilled" jobs - waiters I'm thinking - that will suddenly have to be covered? Things are tight - maybe not so bad by 2014, but that's a pile of money that they'll need to come up with... if this is true!

Thing is, as I understand it (and I could well be wrong), this bill wouldn't require your employer to offer it or pay for it - it would require YOU to have it, whether through your employer (as many currently do), or through your own devices, with some help in the form of subsidies from the federal government, if your employer DOESN'T offer insurance. I don't read it as compelling your employer to offer it - though many more doubtless will, in an effort to get and retain more employees who don't want the hassle of shopping for insurance themselves on the open market.

Ideally, I'd like to see the government offer, or at least ALLOW, non-profit insurance co-ops to be formed, where say, a whole group of workers within in industry (not just within a single employer's company) would be able to buy in and become part of a much larger group plan. The employees of the U.S. Postal Service don't get charged less than I do for their insurance because they get worse coverage; they get charged less because there are a shit-ton more of them, and collective-bargaining with a huge number of people makes more sense to an insurance company than does bargaining with my company's measly four employees.

Now, if I were able to join with, say, a Texas Small Business Alliance that had upwards of a million members, I bet my costs would go way down - and oddly, my coverages would probably get BETTER at the same time.

That's why I'm *hoping* that there's some real teeth behind repealing the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption, so that smaller groups CAN more easily join with larger groups to bargain for better rates and coverages.

Quote:

Yes, billing depts - bad to be in one and bad to deal with one - and I'm thinking that this will be yet another mountainous layer of forms to be shuffled so you can just get your foot bandaged...

Here I'd love to see us streamline the process, and get some agreed-upon standards for billing, forms, terms, and the like.

As I've mentioned before, I deal in shipping and receiving. It's simpler than medical billing, of course, but it still gets mighty confusing when dealing with 30 different freight carriers, each of whom uses a different Bill of Lading (BOL), Shipper's Letter of Instruction (SLI), billing software, tracking software, etc. - and then further complicate that by changing up the terms for the same things. One company calls it "cartage", another calls it "dreyage", and another calls it "overage" - but it all boils down to the extra charge they're going to bill you for walking something from their truck to your dock, and it's added onto the cost of carrying the shipment across the country or around the world.

Simpler would be better. By most accounts that I've heard, Medicare is quite a simple system for billing and payment. They have a chart that says what they'll pay, you have a specific set of forms to fill out, and you get paid. Done. Where it gets to be a holy mess is when you have to deal with all the various private companies, each of which has some things they cover and some they don't, and different prices for each thing covered, and different forms for billing them for those things. Standardization of billing and forms would probably save as much time and money as just about anything else, but then you might add the heretic idea of "transparency" to the billing process, so no insurance company on Earth would ever get behind THAT crazy notion!

But thanks for having a reasoned, mature discussion about it.

And now, back to work!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 7:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
As to how the poor and unemployed will pay, as I understand it there will be programs and subsidies to reimburse them or to pay their premiums outright. I might be wrong on that, but that was one of the things I heard mentioned.
Indeed:

The cutoff level would be an income of four times the federal poverty level. For one person, that’s about $44,000 a year. For a family of four, the comparable figure is about $88,000.

Ahhh, thx M4P - that's a very generous cutoff number btw, glad to read that. See, this is why I didn't jump to any negative conclusions! Looks like I can stop worrying about waiters too.

Yes, huge props to Mal4 for that post above; awesome information, and quite helpful. By those numbers, my insurance costs would drop dramatically, and my employer's costs would go down as well. Curious to see how that would work in reality...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 8:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Still eagerly awaiting Rappy's response pointing out the SPECIFIC language in the bill that would outlaw all corporations

This is the only bill the 'Rapster understands:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 10:50 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:

Health Care Tax to Be Enforced by 20,000 IRS ‘Bounty Hunters’

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will see its largest expansion since withholding taxes were first enacted during WWII to enforce the glut of new tax mandates and penalties included in the Democrats’ latest health care plan, according to Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX)

A new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend, according to Brady.

“When most people think of health care reform they think of more doctors exams, not more IRS exams,” says U.S. Congressman Kevin Brady, the top House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee. “Isn’t the federal government already intruding enough into our lives? We need thousands of new doctors and nurses in America, not thousands more IRS agents.”

Scores of new federal mandates and fifteen different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under the Democratic House bill. In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes.

Scores of new federal mandates and fifteen different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under the Democratic House bill. In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21228

Ron Paul: 20,000 New IRS Cops Will Steal More Money To Fund Health Care Tax, "The Bankruptcy of This Country Will Repeal It"
http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-irs-will-steal-more-money-to-fund-hea
lth-care/

Private Health-Care Stocks Up After House OK’s Obamacare, Thanks to 10s of Millions of New Customers at Gunpoint
www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201003221132d
owjonesdjonline000249

Obamacare: Names to Remember Come November
http://www.infowars.com/obamacare-names-to-remember-come-november/

Compare the illegal passage of this illegal bill to the illegal passage of the illegal "Federal" Reserve Act by 3 senators at midnight during Xmas holiday in 1913:

Insurance Execs paid $200,000 PER WEEK salary say, "Don't pass the Obamacare Tax!" (evil laff)

Note how Operative Nikovich is taking a day off work... Mission Accompliced.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 11:18 AM

Wow, you really have a thing for Niki, doncha?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 11:34 AM

PEACEKEEPER

Keeping order in every verse

Quote:
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
So previously, when you needed medical attention and were unemployed, how did you pay for it?

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

LUCKLY, I didn't need any.

Obviously, I didn't.

Isn't there like +10% unemployment in this country? How are they supposed to afford it?

I'm guessing minimal health insurance isn't as cheap as liability only car insurance.

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

Sorry, I didn't mean you personally,more a generic question. Over here, we have our National Insurance contribution taken straight from our wage, and that covers you for any medical treatment you may receive.If you are unemployed, a smaller pro rata contribution is deducted before you receive your benefit payment. It is all mandatory but works out a pretty petty part of your wage packet. It's not an amount you would particularly miss.
But that's the system we have always had(certainly in the past 60 yrs or so). We are actually pretty proud of our National health Service and it guarantees that every person is eligible for treatment, regardless of their monetary situation. I don't see your problem

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 11:55 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Wow, you really have a thing for Niki, doncha?

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

I would have to say the reverse holds true as well lol

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

I *think* he meant PN has a thing for Niki, but I might be wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 1:01 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yes, huge props to Mal4 for that post above; awesome information, and quite helpful.

Aw, thanks. It was shockingly easy to find this info: I googled "What is in the health care bill" and this article came up first.

I've been discovering over the past few years that the Christian Science Monitor is actually quite informative. Who'd have thought? Yes, I have a certain amount of prejudice against anything religious. But I'm open to be proven wrong. Glad to be wrong in this case.

I mean to read the whole article when I get a chance, but not today. Busy!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yes, huge props to Mal4 for that post above; awesome information, and quite helpful.
Aw, thanks. It was shockingly easy to find this info: I googled "What is in the health care bill" and this article came up first.

I've been discovering over the past few years that the Christian Science Monitor is actually quite informative. Who'd have thought? Yes, I have a certain amount of prejudice against anything religious. But I'm open to be proven wrong. Glad to be wrong in this case.

I mean to read the whole article when I get a chance, but not today. Busy!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

I've noticed that about the CSM, too. Seems to actually be pretty objective. Which, of course, means that the right will label it as a left-wing partisan rag! :)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 2:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I *think* he meant PN has a thing for Niki, but I might be wrong.

You're not wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 3:00 PM

When would I get fined for not buying a policy? I can hear this all over the country in the coming days...."This is all too good to be true..I have healthcare...What? What do you mean I don't. I've got to buy What? When?"....Hilarious, Well, it's true.......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
When would I get fined for not buying a policy? I can hear this all over the country in the coming days...."This is all too good to be true..I have healthcare...What? What do you mean I don't. I've got to buy What? When?"....Hilarious, Well, it's true.......

Well, according to the conservatives, you'll know when it's in full effect because the sky will come crashing down on you and the U.S. will cease to exist.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 4:00 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
* Drug manufacturers would pay the US a total of $16 billion between 2011 and 2019.
* Health insurers would pay $47 billion over the same period.
* Medical device manufacturers would pay a 2.9 percent excise tax on the sale of any of their wares, beginning Jan. 1, 2013.

So, I'm wondering, will these payments go directly to the congress members "lobbied" most heavily by the industries, or are those payments made separately?

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
* Drug manufacturers would pay the US a total of $16 billion between 2011 and 2019.
* Health insurers would pay $47 billion over the same period.
* Medical device manufacturers would pay a 2.9 percent excise tax on the sale of any of their wares, beginning Jan. 1, 2013.

So, I'm wondering, will these payments go directly to the congress members "lobbied" most heavily by the industries, or are those payments made separately?

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

Touché. :)

Actually, those payments have to go through other channels. If they didn't, people might get the wrong idea, and start thinking you could actually PAY Congresspeople to do things. :)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 5:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
* Drug manufacturers would pay the US a total of $16 billion between 2011 and 2019.
* Health insurers would pay $47 billion over the same period.
* Medical device manufacturers would pay a 2.9 percent excise tax on the sale of any of their wares, beginning Jan. 1, 2013.

So, I'm wondering, will these payments go directly to the congress members "lobbied" most heavily by the industries, or are those payments made separately?

You'll note this breakdown in contributions to senators from health care and pharmaceutical companies and such:

oppose HCR: $96,839
support HCR: $69,421

http://maplight.org/

Senators who opposed HCR have been paid 39% more to do so.

I'm not saying either side is clean, and I wish the numbers for both sides were $0. But it's pretty suggestive of which side of this bill the corporations were on.

Sarge - You've yet to provide any evidence that the HC companies wanted this bill, other than Boehner's "Brer patch" talking point. Which is not actual evidence of anything.

See, this is what I meant about it being our JOB to watch these politicians - collect real evidence. I'm not 100% convinced, and I'd like to know what real arguments apply on both sides. You're not giving me much.

As for maplight: good web site. It'll be interesting to see the numbers coming out of there as financial reform heats up.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:09 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I think that money goes to their campaigns, so they don't "profit" from it.

Just think how that will expand enormously now that corporations are "peopel" and contribute whatever they want!

As to

Quote:
So previously, when you needed medical attention and were unemployed, how did you pay for it? ... LUCKLY, I didn't need any.

What happens when you do? Because nobody gets off scot free, we all need it or will need it. Over here, those without health insurance still get treatment, but WE pay for it with higher premiums presently. This will change that eventually (I'm sure for now the insurance companies will raise premiums out the roof, 'cuz they know regulation is coming and they want to get what they can while they can!). It may well make everything that's happening now worse because they do, but hopefully eventually it'll make them better.

What I want to know is; did they do away with the exemption? If not, jeez, that's gonna make it even harder to regulate them!

As to PN, yes, I'm a favorite target apparently. He gets confused, tho', sometimes calls me Jewish, sometimes lesbian, sometimes calls me...well, I don't know what "operative" is...?

I "got" the crack right off, but there's a difference. I call him insane, which he actually is; he makes up things to call me which have no basis in reality--just like him.

He just irritates me, so I take a swipe at him. I wouldn't even mind if he didn't slather the board with so much conspiracy nutwing stuff and such huge useless posts from another planet that I'm forced to scroll by endlessly.

I keep remembering something about "so many trees..." But he's not important enough to say any more about.

And thank you from me, too Mal...so much misinformation has been posted on this topic, it's good to see the specifics so maybe we can have more reality-based discussions.

Everyone's covered every point on the issue itself here, which is nice to see, and questions have been answered. Whether right or wrong, I'm happy to see us able to discuss what it IS, rather than what it ISN'T. I got sick of seeing the propaganda spouted by people who bought into it and didn't know the facts.

Let's see, if I remember correctly:

"This bill will mean the end of everything..."
"Medicare will mean the end of everything..."
"Social Security will mean the end of everything..."

I'm not buying it. I'll wait and see End of story.

What I'd like to see NOW is the package of "fixes" the House voted on and is on its way to the Senate. Those are some more facts that interest me...anyone know where to find them? That's the last bit, and I'm curious.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
When would I get fined for not buying a policy? I can hear this all over the country in the coming days...."This is all too good to be true..I have healthcare...What? What do you mean I don't. I've got to buy What? When?"....Hilarious, Well, it's true.......

Well, according to the conservatives, you'll know when it's in full effect because the sky will come crashing down on you and the U.S. will cease to exist.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

No the sky is not falling. My point is I don't see the big deal in my life. Only difference is I have to buy insurance. If I wanted it I'd buy it, So the only change here is my liberty has been eroded once again and I'm told to buy an insurance policy when I was content paying cash for my $75 dollar Dr. visits, I have a drug discount policy(which I did choose to buy). This all works fine for me and it bothers me when the gov. takes away my liberties. I have no idea why a few people are jumping for joy(and yes, despite what you read here the majority of Americans don't like gov. control of insurance)This bill will most likely not effect most of us in a good way(unless you like getting told what to do with your money). I have always found it ironic, that on a board that we all came to because of our love of our BDHs, There are so many people that seem to cheer on huge intrusive government. Is'nt a beastly central gov. the alliance after all?

I'm all for affordable insurance and my take is; the states should be reforming insurance....If that is what thier statesmen want, not the feds. Our central gov. has gotten much bigger than our founding fathers' intentions. I mean it's only been 234yrs. since this country's ideals were put on paper, and we have gotten way off track. I could be wrong, but I think the framers would be outraged at the power we have given to the feds. We have to decentralize a bunch of this and put it back in state control, it is so much easier to make changes there if/when we mess things up.I think that is how our founding fathers wanted it. Thats how i'd like to see it. Not feeding the pig.....Well, its true.........

PN, that's a great Ron Paul vid. Yes, you are still a fucking wack-job, but every now and then you post a gem........Well, this is mostly true....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:42 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I think that money goes to their campaigns, so they don't "profit" from it.

Actually they do, eventually.

When a politician retires, they get to pocket the campaign chest, just so ya know.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:55 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Frem: I was snarking, dear

I repeat my point, Kane: If you chose not to have health insurance, then something catastrophic happened (which WILL happen to all of us sooner or later), you'd end up in the ER and the rest of us would be paying for it.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:11 AM

Now with "pre-existing conditions" covered by mandate, just sign up for healthcare in the car on the way to the hospital, or even as they're wheeling you into the O.R. And nothing will have changed. If yer a deadbeat, we productive members of society will pay for your ass whether you have coverage or not, one way or another. Only difference is now Healthcare is the NEW Welfare, so forget about you counting for anything as a person. To the Govt, you're just a number, and you'll be treated just like you are in the Post Office line. BTW, pre-existing conditions are what bankrupted both Mass and Calif health insurance systems, and premiums continue to rise faster than the national average in those states. It's NOT "insurance" anymore, it's just a medical money grab until it all runs out, probably in less than a few years we'll have another bankrupt failed Govt program like Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, and the Post Office.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:16 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
you're just a number, and you'll be treated just like you are in the Post Office line

Oh, I see; you mean like health insurance companies treat us NOW? What a relief!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Frem: I was snarking, dear

I repeat my point, Kane: If you chose not to have health insurance, then something catastrophic happened (which WILL happen to all of us sooner or later), you'd end up in the ER and the rest of us would be paying for it.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

It all comes out of the same "pot" . If i get treated at an er they most likely write me off as a lose(if a for profit hospital), if they do pass off the "hidden"(the uninsured) cost to other peoples insurance companies then the insurance co will charge thier cutomers higher premiums to off set this cost. Now, All costs will be charged to the insurance co's. They are the only ones now getting charged. At least before the insurance co's(that ultimatly charge us) were sheltered from the total costs from hospitals, drs, meds by the percent written off or done as local community charity... If you think that you will pay less, I think it's a dream. We will now pay the true cost of health care. All the numbers kicked around seem to act as if this is'nt how it's done. I know the real way it's done because my mother has been the CFO of a major for profit hospital here in Hartford since I was a child. Hospitals have always made deals with local politicians to treat area residents that don't have insurance for consideration in location, tax breaks, and public funding. Not all of this gets transfered over to insurance co's. My mother explained that the hospital "eats" this loss to be a good corporate citizen...that ends now. Now hospitals, drs, etc...can bilk insurance co's for the overall true cost, and in turn...we will pay. My mother's guess here her profits will go up 25%. And profits don't just appear in thin air..no politician in congress has ever used the real numbers(not from either side) and certainly not the cbo.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:22 AM

Quote:
Oh, I see; you mean like health insurance companies treat us NOW? What a relief!

Sure, I understand you need an imaginary "enemy". That's all you Dems ever need. But keep the pathetic sales pitch to yourself. My own personal experiences with Blue Cross and Humana have always been as good as I believed they could be. My family and I have never been denied anything. In fact, it's the Govt's Medicare that is the largest single source of denying benefits to people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
(and yes, despite what you read here the majority of Americans don't like gov. control of insurance)

Um... check those poll numbers on the public option.

Quote:
I have always found it ironic, that on a board that we all came to because of our love of our BDHs, There are so many people that seem to cheer on huge intrusive government. Is'nt a beastly central gov. the alliance after all?

Well see, that's because we live in the *real* world, not in a work of fiction. And as much as we love our freedom, we also know that a govt is needed to defend that freedom, such as placing limits on business.

If you're so in love with living without govt fetters, how come you never left those awful fetters behind? I'm sure there are some tiny corners of this world that are something like Joss's "Rim". The Alaskan wilderness, or Australian outback, for instance.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Quote:
Oh, I see; you mean like health insurance companies treat us NOW? What a relief!

Sure, I understand you need an imaginary "enemy". That's all you Dems ever need.

Yeah... Remember all those Democrats running ads in the '04 and '08 campaign saying that Al Qaeda was going to get us?

Neither do I.

Fear and an imaginary "enemy" is purely the stock in trade of the Republican party. You know, RL, YOUR party. ;)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Now with "pre-existing conditions" covered by mandate, just sign up for healthcare in the car on the way to the hospital, or even as they're wheeling you into the O.R.

You're arguing against the healthcare bill by pointing out that it allows you to sign up for care even with a pre-existing condition?

That's definitely a novel approach. Not a smart one, but a novel one...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:31 AM

That's how far you've sunk into ideological insanity? You compare Al Qaeda to Health Insurance Companies? You really need to see a doctor; better go quickly while they're still around.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Now with "pre-existing conditions" covered by mandate, just sign up for healthcare in the car on the way o the hospital, or even as they're wheeling you into the O.R.

Wow, are you just misinformed or what! The reason the mandate is in the bill is to prevent this very situation.

What you're describing is what many folk seem to want out of the status quo: every American must be perfectly free to NOT pay into insurance, but then when they get older and might need health care they should sign up and have everything paid for. Hell, that would be convenient! Nice little welfare system - you don't have to contribute, but you take all you need out of it.

Yeah, that doesn't work. Money has got to go in, not just out. Or else the insurance companies are left doing evil shit like automatically cutting people off as soon as they're diagnosed with expensive illnesses. As much as I don't like it, I have to admit: the mandate ensures that everyone plays fair, and doesn't "order up insurance as they're wheeled into the OR".

So Riverlove, I should write you up as a fan of the mandate then?

ETA because you seem a bit shaky as to what the HCR actually is: the "mandate" refers to how everyone must pay into insurance. It does not refer to how everyone must be treated, pre-existing conditions or not. That's a different part of the bill. Did you not know that?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

I have always found it ironic, that on a board that we all came to because of our love of our BDHs, There are so many people that seem to cheer on huge intrusive government.

And I've always found it ironic that on a board that we all came to because of our love of A TELEVISION FANTASY, there are so many people who can't seem to tell the difference between fiction and reality.

You say this will be no big deal in your life. I'd wager this "huge intrusive government" will actually be no huge big deal in ANY of our lives.

So what were you babbling about with all your doom & gloom "huge intrusive government" stuff, then, if it's not going to be a big deal?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You're arguing against the healthcare bill by pointing out that it allows you to sign up for care even with a pre-existing condition?

That's definitely a novel approach. Not a smart one, but a novel one...

Pre-existing conditions are what bankrupted other programs like this in Mass and Calif. and Tenn.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You're arguing against the healthcare bill by pointing out that it allows you to sign up for care even with a pre-existing condition?

That's definitely a novel approach. Not a smart one, but a novel one...

Pre-existing conditions are what bankrupted other programs like this in Mass and Calif. and Tenn.

Because there was no mandate.

OK, so clearly you love the mandate, and this new health care bill has made your day! Hmm... or you think we should let sick people die.

Good. Run for office with that. It'll be a barrel of laughs!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Now with "pre-existing conditions" covered by mandate, just sign up for healthcare in the car on the way to the hospital, or even as they're wheeling you into the O.R.

Yeah, better to leave the sick to die if they're poor. That's the American way, as YOU see it, eh? You wanna pay for roads that you mostly don't use, but not for the lives of fellow citizens.
Nice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
That's how far you've sunk into ideological insanity? You compare Al Qaeda to Health Insurance Companies? You really need to see a doctor; better go quickly while they're still around.

I compared your breathless, hyperbolic fear-mongering to that of the breathless, hyperbolic fear-mongering of your beloved Republican party during the run-ups to the '04 and '08 elections. Funny you didn't notice that. I guess you were too busy being scared.

Well, that or you were too busy ramping up your false indignation...

And if you aren't fear-mongering, what's with the "better go quickly while they're still around" bit? Where are all the doctors going? Are they following you and Rush to Costa Rica, where they have government-run healthcare?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:49 AM

Evil health care reform-caused double post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You're arguing against the healthcare bill by pointing out that it allows you to sign up for care even with a pre-existing condition?

That's definitely a novel approach. Not a smart one, but a novel one...

Pre-existing conditions are what bankrupted other programs like this in Mass and Calif. and Tenn.

Did Rush give you any cites that back any of that up, or are you just pulling this out of your ass again?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:51 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Omygawd, "imaginary enemies" is the den of Democrats??? Wow, that's a wild one...given the Republicans are most often successful by overblowing or creating enemies to inspire fear to gain power! Amazing.

Kane, I can't read your response, it's too tiny. I was able to read the part Mal quoted, and in that you are totally wong. The "public option" (as in Government-run) insurance plan has been higher in the polls than "no change" from the very beginning...it's the bill that just passed that has the low numbers. That's a fact; I dare you to find any poll where the public option doesn't score high.

And Mal has a point; would you care to list any country where there is NO government interference which are doing better than those WITH it? I'd be interested to learn about such a country. Unfettered capitalism is disasterous, as is "unfettered" any other form of government. Please prove otherwise with facts and cites.

River, I'm happy for you that you've had good experiences. I haven't, nor have millions of other Americans. I guess as long as it's been good for you, that's all that matters.[/snark]

On the other hand, your ideological slant is so far over the top that it's sad. Nobody's comparing insurance companies to Al Qaeda; in '04 and '08, the Republicans used Al Qaeda as a convenient enemy in their campaigns...you've probably forgotten the lies about Al Quaeda as the reason we invaded Iraq, the reason for waterboarding, that they were gonna "come get us" if we didn't vote Republican. Or have you?

Right now it's the Republicans who are saying the Obama administration is friends with terrorists, encouraging Al Qaeda, Communist, Facist, etc., etc.; apparently you can't see that, although all of those hate one ANOTHER, they're convenient visceral buzz words to scare people. They are just that, and using them and other made-up enemies is the purvue of the Republican Party.

The insurance companies aren't the enemy--it's their JOB to make a profit. It's the situation as it is now, the fact that survival shouldn't BE a for-profit enterprise, and the things being pointed out as reasons we need health care reform aren't imaginary, they are happening every day. It's the SITUATION that is the enemy, and that situation is very, very real, despite your not having encountered it.

Rspectfully, if you can manage to argue with some semblance of reason, you'll find it more effective.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
(and yes, despite what you read here the majority of Americans don't like gov. control of insurance)
Um... check those poll numbers on the public option.

Quote:
I have always found it ironic, that on a board that we all came to because of our love of our BDHs, There are so many people that seem to cheer on huge intrusive government. Is'nt a beastly central gov. the alliance after all?
Well see, that's because we live in the *real* world, not in a work of fiction. And as much as we love our freedom, we also know that a govt is needed to defend that freedom, such as placing limits on business.

If you're so in love with living without govt fetters, how come you never left those awful fetters behind? I'm sure there are some tiny corners of this world that are something like Joss's "Rim". The Alaskan wilderness, or Australian outback, for instance.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

How is controling your life protecting freedom. That is the most ass-backward thing I've ever read. Not only would I have to forget the constitutional restraints of government and civics. I'd have to forget Socratic thought, common sense, and everything American, to even try to debate you on this....you are that far gone. Now go back and read my comments about the STATES doing reform....you are either retarded or a liar. I have no problem with governments. I just prefer local and state over federal....you tool......

As far as the BDS, Most humans are attracted to the theme in a film or book because they find a universal truth somewhere within that they relate too or believe in. But I guess not you. You must be miserable.I am not making this up. What are you a zombie? What a fucking mental midget you must be.......well, it's true..........

Love always kaneman

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:56 AM

Quote:

And Mal has a point; would you care to list any country where there is NO government interference which are doing better than those WITH it? I'd be interested to learn about such a country. Unfettered capitalism is disasterous, as is "unfettered" any other form of government. Please prove otherwise with facts and cites.

I think Sudan and Sierra Leone have rather low government interference in their "free markets". I don't know if you'd really say they're doing "better", though. I guess it all depends on your view of capitalism!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
survival shouldn't BE a for-profit enterprise

Ah, Niki, now you show your true colours... you care- you actually care for these Earth-creatures.

You'd never make it on Zod's team.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:01 AM