Bill HR passed to law (and other controversies it seems...)

[X]

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.

[Rico]

Good for you for slogging through it.  Nice to hear a voice from someone that has done some research on it.

[moyer777]

do you have a link for it?

[X]

Sure do. Was going to include it, but my brother in law distracted me.

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

[Bryancd]

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.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

All I know is:

I'm going to repost this when I've thought it through.

King

[X]

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?

[Bryancd]

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.

[X]

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

[JoSpiv]

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   

[Meds]

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 :)   

[Bryancd]

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! :)

[KingIsaacLinksr]

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

[X]

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.

We 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.

[Ktrek]

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