Okay, the bill has passed and will soon be signed into law. I know there is a lot of debate on this and I'm wondering why. Okay, so the bill is 1018 pgs long, but I'm not one to listen to people to tell me what something says. I'm 257 pages into the bill and I'm not seeing an issue. I'm sure that people have their issues, but I really suggest that everyone take a look at it. We know what has been said about it, but as a board of people that favor the written word, I suggest that you give it a go.
From what I have read this far, here is what it is doing:
For any insurance company to come into an area they need to provide a basic plan, if they do that they can provide an extended plan, then a premium plan, and then a premium plus plan. so if you want to offer a premium plan, you have to offer all the plans below it.
They will say what each plan needs to have to qualify for the category and set a cost guideline where insurance companies can charge +/-10% of the standard amount which will be the gov plan. The gov will also create their own network of docs like the insurance companies have. For the basic plan, the person has a 5,000 total deductible for a year. If I remember my own older plans, I think the insurance companies fluxate between 5 and 10 grand a year mostly hovering around 7,500.
There are a lot of informative things here. We should all give it a read. I'll update later if there is interest.
Good for you for slogging through it. Nice to hear a voice from someone that has done some research on it.
do you have a link for it?
Sure do. Was going to include it, but my brother in law distracted me.
http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf (http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf)
Conceptually I think he Bill has merit. For me, it's a queston of timing. The Bill will have a consequence for business, an additional cost at a time when we should concern ourselves more with promoting hiring. Also, to say this Bill won't be an increasing to cost of government at a time of MASSIVE government expenditures which threaten our debt rating is also ill conceived timing. Finally, is it truly in keeping with the principals of our Republic that the founding fathers envisioned as it's a a Federal mandate forced upon the states and the individual. I think not. This Bill will require much higher taxes, both income and a higher tax on investment income. When your 401(k)'s tank next year as the market sells off in advance of a capital gain tax increase, know where to put the responsibility. This same tax will also hugely impact small business.
So again, reading the Bill makes it sound reasonable, and it is, but the cost is the issue and right now we can't afford it.
All I know is:
I'm going to repost this when I've thought it through.
King
Quote from: Bryancd on March 22, 2010, 07:19:33 PM
Conceptually I think he Bill has merit. For me, it's a queston of timing. The Bill will have a consequence for business, an additional cost at a time when we should concern ourselves more with promoting hiring. Also, to say this Bill won't be an increasing to cost of government at a time of MASSIVE government expenditures which threaten our debt rating is also ill conceived timing. Finally, is it truly in keeping with the principals of our Republic that the founding fathers envisioned as it's a a Federal mandate forced upon the states and the individual. I think not. This Bill will require much higher taxes, both income and a higher tax on investment income. When your 401(k)'s tank next year as the market sells off in advance of a capital gain tax increase, know where to put the responsibility. This same tax will also hugely impact small business.
So again, reading the Bill makes it sound reasonable, and it is, but the cost is the issue and right now we can't afford it.
I'm going to address each of yours issues:
Cost: If the insurance companies can make record profits off of health insurance and the federal government is providing the same service, it is reasonable to assume that the higher levels of a public option plan would generate positive cashflow. In addition to that, like any business model, hospitals use shrink(loss) in their estimates and increase prices to cover services to people that wasn't going to pay their bills. With more people insured, more of these bills will be paid and in theory it should drive down cost or at the very least increase profits for the medical businesses. It also increases the time of a a company's ability to maintain control over a new product. I believe in the past that you could own your drug for seven years before they allowed generics to be made. That has been extended to 12 years which, again in theory, be more profitable to pharmcoms.
Controls: The government will set standards of cost for the insurance companies. They are also required by this bill to work with the states on this. They have already set standards for drinking age and the ability to enlist in the armed forces, including national guards that are controlled by the states. They also set minimal standards when it comes to emissions, seat belts, and a variety of other things. This is nothing new. Also, it is not being forced upon individuals. Insurance companies are being made to play by a set standard. Just as many other companies are made to play by a set standard.
Small Businesses: With companies less than 1000 people, they won't be affected. Let's put that into perspective. Let's say you own a mid sized retail shop. You can sucessfully run a retail shop with less than 11 people on the payroll. That means that you would have to own 90+ retail shops for this to affect you. Is your business really that small of you own 90+ outlets?
The federal plan will be taking premiums from the people that sign up. If they can't make a profit off of that then how does heath companies do it?
As to if we can afford it or not, I think we can. Since you brought up the founding fathers, I'll answer with this all people are entitled to life, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Currently we have thousands of people in america dying because of poor medical care or the lack of it. If affordable medical care and the ability for the people of this country to live happier and healthier lives doesn't meet the ideals of the founding fathers, what does?
Let's be honest. As it stands, the insurance companies are an entity that profits off of the healthy at the expense of the sick. Healthy people are great for the bottom line, but they save more money to cut off the sick or have them die quickly. They are middle men that have the power of life and death in their hands. That's not something that I'm happy to stand behind. Everyone needs to be protected and profits will still be made. More people will be paying premiums and not just the sick. Health people that couldn't afford the cost before will now be added to the people that can continue to line their coffers. The larger amount of people under their plan will also continue to give them added power when negotiating with the medical community when dealing with costs allowing them to get better rates and allowing hospitals to agree to those better rates because there will be fewer people skipping out on their tabs.
In the end, it's about a healthy america. If we can't afford it now, when will we ever be able to?
Quote from: Just X on March 22, 2010, 07:50:58 PM
I'm going to address each of yours issues:
Cost: If the insurance companies can make record profits off of health insurance and the federal government is providing the same service, it is reasonable to assume that the higher levels of a public option plan would generate positive cashflow. In addition to that, like any business model, hospitals use shrink(loss) in their estimates and increase prices to cover services to people that wasn't going to pay their bills. With more people insured, more of these bills will be paid and in theory it should drive down cost or at the very least increase profits for the medical businesses. It also increases the time of a a company's ability to maintain control over a new product. I believe in the past that you could own your drug for seven years before they allowed generics to be made. That has been extended to 12 years which, again in theory, be more profitable to pharmcoms.
Controls: The government will set standards of cost for the insurance companies. They are also required by this bill to work with the states on this. They have already set standards for drinking age and the ability to enlist in the armed forces, including national guards that are controlled by the states. They also set minimal standards when it comes to emissions, seat belts, and a variety of other things. This is nothing new. Also, it is not being forced upon individuals. Insurance companies are being made to play by a set standard. Just as many other companies are made to play by a set standard.
Small Businesses: With companies less than 1000 people, they won't be affected. Let's put that into perspective. Let's say you own a mid sized retail shop. You can successfully run a retail shop with less than 11 people on the payroll. That means that you would have to own 90+ retail shops for this to affect you. Is your business really that small of you own 90+ outlets?
The federal plan will be taking premiums from the people that sign up. If they can't make a profit off of that then how does heath companies do it?
As to if we can afford it or not, I think we can. Since you brought up the founding fathers, I'll answer with this all people are entitled to life, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Currently we have thousands of people in America dying because of poor medical care or the lack of it. If affordable medical care and the ability for the people of this country to live happier and healthier lives doesn't meet the ideals of the founding fathers, what does?
Let's be honest. As it stands, the insurance companies are an entity that profits off of the healthy at the expense of the sick. Healthy people are great for the bottom line, but they save more money to cut off the sick or have them die quickly. They are middle men that have the power of life and death in their hands. That's not something that I'm happy to stand behind. Everyone needs to be protected and profits will still be made. More people will be paying premiums and not just the sick. Health people that couldn't afford the cost before will now be added to the people that can continue to line their coffers. The larger amount of people under their plan will also continue to give them added power when negotiating with the medical community when dealing with costs allowing them to get better rates and allowing hospitals to agree to those better rates because there will be fewer people skipping out on their tabs.
In the end, it's about a healthy America. If we can't afford it now, when will we ever be able to?
To assume that the Federal government can administer health care in the same efficiency as an HMO or corporation is something I can't agree with. Government has never proven the ability to provide services better than the private economy. In regards to hospital and drug company profits, yes this will be a positive to their bottom line, especially for the generic drug makers. I have been investing in their stocks accordingly for my clients to benefit from that.
Your examples of Federal mandate issue's pf Control are light years way from this Bill and I see zero corelation between what you cited and the scope of what has just been passed. Totally different.
Small business, well guess who makes over $250K in personal income every year and will be taxed to pay for this? Small business owners with fewer than 10 employees, forget 1000. It's the personal income tax hikes that will hit them. Guess what will happen to their hiring?
People are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that basic Principal of freedom is diametrically opposed to the concept of government mandated health care.
Again, I appreciate the spirit of this concept. I want all people to be able to be cared for, I just don't feel this is the way to do it. Using the power of the Fedeal government to "negotiate" costs with the private sector is a fools errand. We can't afford 95% of the government programs enacted over the past 18 months, but this will be a crushing long term blow. Don't for a moment believe the budget projections from Washington.
Okay, I can only speak on personal experience about the government. Having worked for them twice, I got paid on time and correctly every time. My father continues to get paid timely and with no issue. I don't see any proof that they are failing at everything that.
As for the budget projections, why should we not believe it? How often has the people that came up with the projections been wrong? Here is what they had to say. Sure, they might be wrong, but what if they are right? I'm willing to err on the side of a healthier America and the increase. If they are wrong ... we still get a healthier America and hopefully a more productive one. I'm not one to really bet on the intrinsic kindness of humanity, but what if we can help people and even if they don't make everything that they project, we could break even with it. Would it be bad if the government can break even at the worse instead of the profit?
Here is the report from the committee:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf)
This is a pretty good explanation of what's in the bill. As far as I can tell it's a pretty non-partisan too.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2010/03/22/what-is-and-isnt-in-the-healthcare-bill.html (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2010/03/22/what-is-and-isnt-in-the-healthcare-bill.html)
Loving this debate, intelligent posts from all well done you lot. I can't comment as one it doesn't affect me and two I've nit read the bill and it would be wrong for me to make assumptions. A friend ( American ) asked me my opinion on my health care system here in Blighty and I have to say I am grateful and have no real worthy complaints. As you know my wife and close friends are nurses and doctors and all work for the NHS. They struggle under over management ( what's new name me a business that doesn't have too many managers and not enough workers) and they can be rushed off their feet but they give a good honest service. Yes there has been the odd blips but the good far out weighs the bad. I pay tax for the NHS, police and fire etc and I've used hospitals quite a bit ( especially recently) and I can't complain. I've always said to people who moan in the UK about waiting times etc " would you rather have the NHS where the Dr asks if you are alright first or a private sector where the Dr would ask for your insurance card first" the answer is always the same. NHS please.
As I say great debate everyone I look forward to Reading more :)
OMB projection have never been accurate. It's not their fault, it's just the nature of government spending economics and accounting. Here's an interesting excerpt from one of my business news letters by Dennis Gartman:
"Moving back to health care here in the US, after less
than one day after the House approved the Senate's
healthcare plan, the Attorneys General of several
states... including our own Commonwealth of
Virginia... yesterday moved to sue to block the plan on
constitutional grounds. Attorneys General in more than
ten states said that it is their intention to file to stop the
federal government from overstepping its constitutional
powers and from usurping states' rights.
In reality, the states in question are concerned not only
about states' rights and sovereignty, but they are
equally concerned the burden of providing for and
paying for healthcare will fall to them via federal
mandate... and simply put, they cannot afford it.
The newly elected Attorney General of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Mr. Kenneth Cuccinelli,
intends to file suit in federal court in Richmond, noting
that Congress lacks the authority under the constitution
to force Virginians to buy insurance. Virginia may
require Virginians to do so, but Washington cannot.
According to the Constitution, unless the Constitution
grants the right to the Federal government explicitly, all
other powers are deferred to the States. We look for
the Supreme Court to push these suits to its purview
swiftly. This shall be a veritable classroom on
government and constitutional law writ large."
Libertarians are alive and well in our Republic! :)
ooo, I'm a little surprised that no one thought of that. And if I remember the Constitution right, I believe the Attorney General's are correct.
King
Quote from: Kinglinksr on March 23, 2010, 11:44:50 AM
ooo, I'm a little surprised that no one thought of that. And if I remember the Constitution right, I believe the Attorney General's are correct.
King
You are remembering wrong.
Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
QuoteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
People are dying without cause due to the status of the health care system. If life is a right then medical services to grant a better life and a happier life is EXACTLY what the founders were speaking of.
Insurance companies are a middle man that make more profit off of a quick death than someone being treated. This concept is not anywhere close to promoting the life liberty and pursuit of happiness that the founders wanted.
Quote from: Just X on March 23, 2010, 12:31:25 PM
If life is a right then medical services to grant a better life and a happier life is EXACTLY what the founders were speaking of.
I do not believe the governement thinks life is a "right". If they do then they are inconsistent in allowing any form of abortion coverage and protection. No they do not see life as a right.
Kevin
Quote from: Ktrek on March 23, 2010, 12:53:31 PM
Quote from: Just X on March 23, 2010, 12:31:25 PM
If life is a right then medical services to grant a better life and a happier life is EXACTLY what the founders were speaking of.
I do not believe the governement thinks life is a "right". If they do then they are inconsistent in allowing any form of abortion coverage and protection. No they do not see life as a right.
Kevin
Kevin. The abortion debate using Roe v wade has never been about abortion. Roe v wade was about a woman's right to privacy and determining her own medical treatment. Because women are entitled to medical privacy they are entitled to choose what medical procedures that they want for their bodies. If they have a right to privacy, you can't look over their shoulders and tell them they can't have elective surgery.
I have my own personal views on abortion, but I am adult enough to mind my own business in things that don't concern me. I suggest that anyone who is curious about the subject to actually read the ruling.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html)
In continuing the discussion, you brought up something interesting. Should we ban abortion and allow more uninsured children brought into a world where they can not be given proper medical care? If these people opting for an abortion didn't want a child, would they make good parents if forced to have the child or should they be shuffled into an already broken system where many children are not adopted and spend their entire childhood living in the system.
If some people don't want to pay for universal health care, who are they expecting to pay for an unwanted child that the mother is more than likely not going to keep? Should the fact that a woman can die from childbirth with even the best medical care weigh in that decision? Having a child is a risk on the life of any woman with or without insurance, so if a woman goes to term with a child that she doesn't want and they both die, should we feel okay with that?
Lastly, if we force a woman to go though was a pregnancy that she doesn't want, are we also supposed to force them to have the proper care, diet, and drug free life style? What if they don't care about the child and continue to booze or what have you, should we arrest them for getting pregnant and not wanting it then throw them into protective custody for the duration to keep the child safe? Are we as a society going to pay her bills for the work she has to miss to have the child she doesn't want?
I hope that I am not the only person that has considered all of this. I, for my own personal beliefs, don't agree with abortion on some levels, but I detest the alternative.
Oh boy...here we go....
((Bromptonboy heads for cover..)) ;)
Quote from: Bryancd on March 23, 2010, 01:50:06 PM
Oh boy...here we go....
Nah, we don't have to go anywhere with this. Something was brought up and I brought up a counter point to it. Someone once said to me that just because I don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong. I think that a man's opinion on abortion is kind of a moot point. It's not our bodies and we can't force someone to do what we want either way. Even if we could be the best fathers in the world we simply don't have the right to risk someone's life against their will to do it. Is it a balanced system? Not even close. As I said, I have my own opinions on it, but I'd be a fool to think it was balanced and fair to men. There are ways to make parts more balanced without trampling a woman's rights, but even that is controversial.
Some things can't be fair and balanced, but (and to shift back on topic) affordable (not free) health care is one of those things that we can be fair about.
All I can think of was: (From the Holy Grail)
RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY! :P
King
I gave up a long time ago on trying to change people's minds on abortion. Each side is way to cemented into their own personal beliefs. And it really is a sensitive issue which life experiences play a major part on which side they come down on. I try not to let myself get stirred up about it.
Not to get too political but don't see how this is getting paid for. They borrowed the money for the war in Iraq and the bailouts, the budget comes up short every year, the national debt doubled between 2000-2008, etc. Even without this bill, I don't see how ends would ever be expected to meet. In the post revolutionary period they scrambled to pay down the war debts as to not burdon future generations; they felt to burdon their children and grandchildren would be immoral. In order to get caught up, they would have to do to painful things: raise taxes and cut spending. No one wants their taxes raised nor any cut that might effect them. Sorry if that was too political, I know my opinionated typing tends to rub people the wrong way. I'll get off my soapbox now.
Well, like I mentioned, they will have no choice but to raise taxes on Medicare, which they have already said is a done deal. So if you make $200K individually of $250K Joint, your taxes are going up. That was my point about US small business which accounts for the majority of hiring in this country. This tax will hit them square in the face. Add to that an inevitable increase in long term capital gains and dividend/interest income will hurt investment portfolios for all Americans. We have issues so much debt over the past decade, this expense will increase that, putting our AAA credit rating at risk. They are risking more than most people realize and at the wrong time just to pass a bad piece of legislation. I have VERY serious concerns as to what this country will look like in another 10-15 years....
I wish we could achieve some form of universal health care through full employment, employer sponsored health benefits, tax break incentives to facilitate that. Instead, we get the Federal Government who I think are border line incompetent. I had no idea how uniformwed our elected officials have become until I watched the Senate Banking Committee questioning Financial Services CEO's. It's alarming, horrifying, depressing, how little they now about economics. It's staggering. :ohwell
Quote from: Bryancd on March 23, 2010, 04:32:34 PM
Well, like I mentioned, they will have no choice but to raise taxes on Medicare, which they have already said is a done deal. So if you make $200K individually of $250K Joint, your taxes are going up. That was my point about US small business which accounts for the majority of hiring in this country. This tax will hit them square in the face. Add to that an inevitable increase in long term capital gains and dividend/interest income will hurt investment portfolios for all Americans. We have issues so much debt over the past decade, this expense will increase that, putting our AAA credit rating at risk. They are risking more than most people realize and at the wrong time just to pass a bad piece of legislation. I have VERY serious concerns as to what this country will look like in another 10-15 years....
I wish we could achieve some form of universal health care through full employment, employer sponsored health benefits, tax break incentives to facilitate that. Instead, we get the Federal Government who I think are border line incompetent. I had no idea how uniformwed our elected officials have become until I watched the Senate Banking Committee questioning Financial Services CEO's. It's alarming, horrifying, depressing, how little they now about economics. It's staggering. :ohwell
I can agree with you that there are some uninformed people in the government, but I think the same could be said for many companies. Granted the wasteful military spending didn't help us, but the creative book keeping and shady lending practices of several major companies are in part to blame for the current state of affairs.
I think that there could have been a much better bill, but I'm not unhappy with what we did get. There are provisions to get more nurses trained and help them with school. We've had a critical nursing shortage for years now.
I do think that we can be better and that it's sad to know that our children's generation are projected to have a shorter lifespan than ours because of the way we have been abusing food and diets. This in part has to do with the worst food being the cheapest and Americans as a whole not understanding what a proper portion is. Hopefully the provision in this law to educate people on food and other preventative measures included in the law will teach people the tool they need to prevent many of the illnesses that can be prevented.
What bothers me the most is all the hate that is out there. Members of Congress are getting death threats, and now are being given protection. The idea that this new law some how takes rights away from people is crazy. And the claims that it wasn't done through the normal process seen for every other law is simply a lie. It wasn't rushed through, nor were the Republicans left out. This was a process that took 14 months officially, and large portions of this law are Republican ideas. The Democrats didn't get what they wanted either, there is no Public Option.
The lies and hate speak that are now coming out of some people in the government are from private citizens is pretty horrible, and I think it will hurt the Republican Party for years to come if it continues.
Well I was about to comment that, yes republicans have been acting childish and have been completely unimpressive this time around; but in 2004 the democrats got pretty rough as well.
I just flipped by the news to a story that a republican congressman's campaign office attacked. Someone shot a bullet through House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's office window.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001168-503544.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001168-503544.html)
Quote from: Just X on March 22, 2010, 08:37:39 PM
Here is the report from the committee:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf)
Well, the CBO also said Social Security will be paying out more than it's taking in by 2016. Turns out that will happen next year. Good job! :ohwell
Quote from: Bryancd on March 25, 2010, 11:44:36 AM
Well, the CBO also said Social Security will be paying out more than it's taking in by 2016. Turns out that will happen next year. Good job! :ohwell
Speaking of Social Security, did you know members of the clergy can opt out of the program as a conscious objector by filling out IRS Form 4361?
What's odd to me is, why just the preacher and not the congregation? If I and my pastor share the same beliefs, why should I not be allowed to opt out as he does? If given the choice I personally would like the option to put that money in a retirement account of my choosing rather than letting the government manage that money for me. And I would be one less person the government would have to worry about paying social security out to.
Quote from: AlanP on March 25, 2010, 11:57:40 AM
If given the choice I personally would like the option to put that money in a retirement account of my choosing rather than letting the government manage that money for me.
But why?! They do such a good job! :roflmao
Quote from: Bryancd on March 25, 2010, 12:01:02 PM
But why?! They do such a good job! :roflmao
Yeah, chimps could do better.
Quote from: AlanP on March 25, 2010, 08:49:46 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on March 25, 2010, 12:01:02 PM
But why?! They do such a good job! :roflmao
Yeah, chimps could do better.
Chimps? Cmon dude, have some respect.
Now ROCKS, they do a better job than the government. Heck, I believe that's how Nancy P. was towards her people she represents from her district....
King
Here is something to think about.
If there is a problem with the way the government manages this republic, don't blame the government. Blame the people that elected those officials. If we can do better then do better. There is absolutely nothing stopping almost any citizen from trying for one of those positions.
It's easy to complain, but why not do? If you have skills that could make the country better, why not use them?
Quote from: Just X on March 26, 2010, 05:46:24 PM
Here is something to think about.
If there is a problem with the way the government manages this republic, don't blame the government. Blame the people that elected those officials.
I do, everyday. And when I encounter most "Americans" I realize we have the government we deserve.
I appreciate that you are thoughtful and informed on the issue's even though we might disagree on the process. The vast majority of our country are not and that's our electorate.
Quote from: Bryancd on March 26, 2010, 06:14:15 PM
Quote from: Just X on March 26, 2010, 05:46:24 PM
Here is something to think about.
If there is a problem with the way the government manages this republic, don't blame the government. Blame the people that elected those officials.
I do, everyday. And when I encounter most "Americans" I realize we have the government we deserve.
I appreciate that you are thoughtful and informed on the issue's even though we might disagree on the process. The vast majority of our country are not and that's our electorate.
We are in agreement there. I'm shocked at how many people think that we're a democracy.