Healthcare Bill

[WolfpackFan]

The Democrats sold out to the insurance industry

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a couple of Democrats and all 40 Republicans sold out to the insurance industry in trashing the public option.

No.  The Republicans did not support the bill in any form, based on idealogically beliefs.  No really, stop laughing, I am serious, mostly.

[Claude Bowles]

It seems the Republicans most important ideological belief was their stated intent to turn healthcare into Obama's Waterloo regardless of the consequences.

[WolfpackFan]

It seems the Republicans most important ideological belief was their stated intent to turn healthcare into Obama's Waterloo regardless of the consequences.

Reminds me of the Dems and the plan to fix Social Security.  Politics as usual in Washington I guess.

[Muddylaces]

I wish they would do just 1 thing, and wait to see its effect.   Allow people to shop for insurance across state line.

[SBB]

1.  Which benefits start right away?

2.  The problem with the "giving Washington a chance" approach is that they do not have a good track record of fixing problems or ending bad programs once they get started.
[/quote]

Until the differences between the bills are worked out I can't say for sure, but under the House plan:

1. BEGINS TO CLOSE THE MEDICARE PART D DONUT HOLE — Reduces the donut hole by $500 and institutes a 50% discount on brand-name drugs, effective January 1, 2010.

2. IMMEDIATE HELP FOR THE UNINSURED UNTIL EXCHANGE IS AVAILABLE (INTERIM HIGH-RISK POOL) — Creates a temporary insurance program until the Exchange is available for individuals who have been uninsured for several months or have been denied a policy because of pre-existing conditions.

3. BANS LIFETIME LIMITS ON COVERAGE — Prohibits health insurance companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage.

4. ENDS RESCISSIONS — Prohibits insurers from nullifying or rescinding a patient’s policy when they file a claim for benefits, except in the case of fraud.

5. EXTENDS COVERAGE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE UP TO 27TH BIRTHDAY THROUGH PARENTS’ INSURANCE — Requires health plans to allow young people through age 26 to remain on their parents’ insurance policy, at the parents’ choice.

6. ELIMINATES COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES IN MEDICARE — Eliminates co-payments for preventive services and exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program.

7. IMPROVES HELP FOR LOW-INCOME MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES — Improves the low-income protection programs in Medicare to assure more individuals are able to access this vital help.

8. PROVIDES NEW CONSUMER PROTECTIONS IN MEDICARE ADVANTAGE — Prohibits Medicare Advantage plans from charging enrollees higher cost-sharing for services in their private plan than what is charged in traditional Medicare.

9. IMMEDIATE SUNSHINE ON PRICE GOUGING — Discourages excessive price increases by insurance companies through review and disclosure of insurance rate increases.

10. CONTINUITY FOR DISPLACED WORKERS — Allows Americans to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place and they can access affordable coverage.

11. CREATES NEW, VOLUNTARY, PUBLIC LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE PROGRAM — Creates a long-term care insurance program to be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.

12. HELP FOR EARLY RETIREES — Creates a $10 billion fund to finance a temporary reinsurance program to help offset the costs of expensive health claims for employers that provide health benefits for retirees age 55-64.

13. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS — Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for a doubling of the number of patients seen by the centers over the next 5 years.

14. INCREASING NUMBER OF PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS — Provides new investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.

[snowcamper]

Imagine that Muddy, doing one improvement at a time instead of cramming such a large bill down everyone's throats!

Sell across state lines.
Remove Federal/state Mandates.
Convert Medicare into an HSA/Catastrophic policy.
Treat individual policies the same as employer-sponsored for tax purposes (make individual premiums deductible)
Allow plan portability:   Do away with the employer sponsored system so that you don't lose your coverage when you lose your job.  So that you can keep a plan you like for as long as you want.  So that you don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions.
Encourage and educate about HSA policies.
Get rid of the "certificate of need system" so that more medical facilities can be built to compete and lower costs.
Increase medical school funding on the condition that they increase enrollment to produce more doctors (thereby increasing the supply of medicine).
Extend the patent protection on drugs and medical devices, so that medical companies can amortize the costs over longer periods of time.
Defend US patents overseas so that Americans don't bear so much of the cost of medical development.
Legally allow screening of Emergency Room patients.

[WolfpackFan]

Will Doctors be forced to accept any new insurance plans or even Medicare?


9. IMMEDIATE SUNSHINE ON PRICE GOUGING — Discourages excessive price increases by insurance companies through review and disclosure of insurance rate increases.

Does anyone not think rates are going up?  You put additional taxes on the companies, force them to accept anyone that comes along, etc., and what do you think will happen to the rates?

[WolfpackFan]

I am also confused by these new rules, because to me, they look like they would raise the cost of healthcare.

1. Raises the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 7.5% to 10%. This means if you are having to spend a lot of money out of pocket for health care, this raises your taxes.

2. The amount you can place into a Flexible Spending account will be lowered from $5,000 to $2,500. Again, anyone that is having to pay for a lot of health care, will see their taxes rise as a result of this lowered amount.

[SBB]

I am also confused by these new rules, because to me, they look like they would raise the cost of healthcare.

1. Raises the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 7.5% to 10%. This means if you are having to spend a lot of money out of pocket for health care, this raises your taxes.

2. The amount you can place into a Flexible Spending account will be lowered from $5,000 to $2,500. Again, anyone that is having to pay for a lot of health care, will see their taxes rise as a result of this lowered amount.

This is in the Senate version and this is one of the reason I prefer the House version.  However, senior citizens have a deferral on it for 5 years and can still use the 7.5% figure.

[djkelly]

  In regards to saying it will cost more after the first ten years, you are incorrect, as it (Senate bill) is projected to still bring down the deficit after the first ten years. 

Have you actually read any of the CBO reports, even the summaries?  I don't see how anyone can read these and still believe your claim if they have any concept of reality.

The so-called Medicare doc fix blows the claim of any deficit reduction right out of the water.  That's why it was taken out of this bill and put into a separate, unfunded bill.

Here's an example but they're all filled with so many caveats it's clear that even the CBO realizes the projected numbers are a joke but they have to produce a score based precisely on how the bill is written, not how they expect it to be implemented in the future.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=446

"These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades. However, the legislation would maintain and put into effect a number of procedures that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. Under current law and under the proposal, payment rates for physicians’ services in Medicare would be reduced by about 21 percent in 2010 and then decline further in subsequent years. At the same time, the legislation includes a number of provisions that would constrain payment rates for other providers of Medicare services. In particular, increases in payment rates for many providers would be held below the rate of inflation. The projected longer-term savings for the legislation also assume that the Independent Payment Advisory Board is fairly effective in reducing costs beyond the reductions that would be achieved by other aspects of the legislation.

Based on the longer-term extrapolation, CBO expects that inflation-adjusted Medicare spending per beneficiary would increase at an average annual rate of less than 2 percent during the next two decades under the legislation—about half of the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades. It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care."

After reading this do you still honestly believe we'll see deficit reductions from this?

[WolfpackFan]

  In regards to saying it will cost more after the first ten years, you are incorrect, as it (Senate bill) is projected to still bring down the deficit after the first ten years. 

Have you actually read any of the CBO reports, even the summaries?  I don't see how anyone can read these and still believe your claim if they have any concept of reality.

The so-called Medicare doc fix blows the claim of any deficit reduction right out of the water.  That's why it was taken out of this bill and put into a separate, unfunded bill.

Here's an example but they're all filled with so many caveats it's clear that even the CBO realizes the projected numbers are a joke but they have to produce a score based precisely on how the bill is written, not how they expect it to be implemented in the future.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=446

"These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades. However, the legislation would maintain and put into effect a number of procedures that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. Under current law and under the proposal, payment rates for physicians’ services in Medicare would be reduced by about 21 percent in 2010 and then decline further in subsequent years. At the same time, the legislation includes a number of provisions that would constrain payment rates for other providers of Medicare services. In particular, increases in payment rates for many providers would be held below the rate of inflation. The projected longer-term savings for the legislation also assume that the Independent Payment Advisory Board is fairly effective in reducing costs beyond the reductions that would be achieved by other aspects of the legislation.

Based on the longer-term extrapolation, CBO expects that inflation-adjusted Medicare spending per beneficiary would increase at an average annual rate of less than 2 percent during the next two decades under the legislation—about half of the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades. It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care."

After reading this do you still honestly believe we'll see deficit reductions from this?

I don't understand how it will be less expensive from year 11 to year 20 either.  From what I have read (mostly the senate bill), the parts of the bill that will cost the most will take about 4 years to get going.  So by my calculations, while we have the 10 year "price tag" for this bill, the majority of it is really for 6 years of benefits.  In reality, you would have to add 40% to the price tag for years 11-20 since we will have benefits for all 10 years.  Now some of that may be offset in savings, if you believe the government can actually save any money, but I don't think anyone believes the government can save enough to offset the 40% price increase.  Am I missing something?

[WolfpackFan]

I am also confused by these new rules, because to me, they look like they would raise the cost of healthcare.

1. Raises the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 7.5% to 10%. This means if you are having to spend a lot of money out of pocket for health care, this raises your taxes.

2. The amount you can place into a Flexible Spending account will be lowered from $5,000 to $2,500. Again, anyone that is having to pay for a lot of health care, will see their taxes rise as a result of this lowered amount.

This is in the Senate version and this is one of the reason I prefer the House version.  However, senior citizens have a deferral on it for 5 years and can still use the 7.5% figure.

Why do senior citizens get an exemption, don't they already have Medicare?

Another thing that aggravates me is the new tax on "Cadillac Plans" that the government wants to include.  Of course this does not apply to union negotiated "Cadillac Plans".

I do not want to seem selfish, but I am looking around and everyone but me seems to be getting a better deal.  What happen to looking out for the middle class and small business owners?

[sofa king]

Did it ever occur to you that we might be wanting to spend time with our family over Christmas rather than futilely arguing with you on the bulletin board?
Is the Senate Health Care bill what I would prefer, no, I prefer the House version with a public option.  Is it better than what we have now?  By millions of times better, counting the people who will be able to have healthcare that don't have it now and the security it will give all of us.  In regards to saying it will cost more after the first ten years, you are incorrect, as it (Senate bill) is projected to still bring down the deficit after the first ten years.  Would we all be better off to have a single payer system (the best way to bring costs down)? Yes, but that is not what most people want so we have to settle for second best.  Depending on the final configuration of the bill, we should all have insurance that will not depend on the vagaries of bottom-line insurance companies as to who can get medical insurance and not be afraid that they will drop you if you get an expensive disease.  Some of the benfits will start right away and others will be phased in.  So how about giving it a try and see how it works before naysaying everything.  Nothing ever starts out perfectly and we will learn as we go as to what what works best and adjust as we go.  I believe we all agree we can't go on as we are now.  I agree that some greedy, power hungry Senators made deals that aren't in the best interests of the country, but just for themselves or their portion of the country.  I also believe that the Republicans are being totally partisan in naysaying everything even if it was something they proposed previously themselves so there is blame all around.  If anyone wants me to vote for term limits, I'll be happy too, especially for Lieberman.

           blah, blah, blah....if you are a policy maker with fingerprints on this terrible piece of legislation, there is a noose around the neck of your political career. Prepare to clean out your desk.

[snowcamper]

Lean on Bob Etheridge:
http://etheridge.house.gov/Contact/

We need to let him know that he's supposed to be representing the people of (mostly) Chatham County, not the interests in Washington, not what Pelosi wants... us.  And that there are electoral consequences for refusing to listen.

[SBB]

And most of the people of Chatham County want him to support the bill based upon the voting in the last election.

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Chatham County Online ----------------------------- => Chatham County Online => Chatham County Schools => Chatham County Food & Drink => Chatham County Music & Arts => Chatham Community Calendar => Free Classifieds & Help Wanted Ads => Noah's Ark - All Creatures Great & Small. => Neighbor to Neighbor => Gardening and Agriculture => Chatham County Real Estate => North Carolina => This, That and Everything Else