Healthcare reform

[T BIRD]

We have been headed towards third world status for some time now.  Obviously that is over stated but you get the point.  If this country does not get back to its roots in terms of allowing the people to make choices and having a free market utilizing capitalistic technology, we will keep heading downward.

Our debt burden is very troubling to me and should be for everyone in America.  We are at risk of losing our AAA status in terms of our credit rating.  If that drops from triple A?  Put your seat belt on.

[agrantha]

Jim

Be careful.  Do you believe that government should exist?  More than likely you do, so look in the mirror before you call anyone an idiot.  If you read the Old Testament, you will see how God allowed the Israelites to have a King because they were tired of following their appointed leader during that time.  God informed them that he would give them a King.  Thus, some of you will run in front of his chariots.  Your wives will work in his kitchen; a portion of your land will be used for his crops.  10% of your wages will be required etc.  During this time the Israelites were miserable following God.

Jim

Search the origin of problems instead of being a media driven…you fill in the blank.

[Poplady1]

Just a note on health care.  For 25 years we ran a small business and provided health care to our employees.  Our premiums went from $4200 a month to $21K a month before we decided we could no longer stay in business.  Look at the number $21K, that amount was greater then our rent (40000 sq ft bldg), our commercial insurance, Social Security, FICA, Sales Tax and much much more...our premium was hiked because two of our long term employees became ill.  One had open heart surgery (me) and another had a wife that became ill.  She needed on going treatments.  So health care premiums put 23 people out of work when we sold.  I would have loved to have the ability to purchase some type of group coverage in these exchanges.

For a few years I carried my personal insurance under cobra.  My monthly health premium was $3600.  Fortunately for me when that ran our I was able to join Medicare.  Once I was on Medicare I could not belive how wonderful that coverage was and continues to be for me.  I go to my Doctor, they may order a test or something but I never have any problems.  It is amazing. If this is what government run health insurace would be like to all of you, do it.  Even if it costs you a little more to get it going...it is just such a relief knowing you are covered.

So good luck to all....looks like the country has taken the first step making some changes.  And all of you making over $20000 a year, I hope this 1% tax hike doesn't hurt to much...

Blue

[Faith Vending]

Faith/Kai, a few questions...

1) Are you against universal healthcare, or just this particular healthcare bill? In other words, do you think every American should have healthcare (*and* have it paid for by the government - which means people via taxes - if they can't afford it)?

2) Can you give specifics on your statements? For example, Faith, how is this less freedom? Do you mean because we will be required to have health insurance? Then, if so, is requiring us to have auto insurance less freedom? Or wearing seatbelts? Or any other the hundreds of other things the gov regulates.

3) Kai, how specifically will it hurt your family and your business? And, does this mean that *any* legislation which does something like raise taxes you would be against?

4) Faith, you said this would further bankrupt the gov. Whether or not this is true, does this mean you are against things which increase the defict? So are you against the Iraq war?

5) No one will say that our gov (or any gov) runs efficiently. But certainly the same can be said for private enterprise too. Regardless, do you think our gov can't manage a healthcare program? If so, do you want to end Medicare/Medicaid?

Kevin

I am for health care reform in terms of lower costs; the ability to buy over state lines and tort reform to name a few. Not a government take over. I am also for helping the poor but we have given all we can give Kevin. It started with "The Great Society", all that accomplished is people became poorer and more dependent on Government. Actually it started with FDR. Same with education; how much money have we thrown into public education and have very little to show for it. Now you want them to take over Health Care..no thanks.

You are getting less freedom because you will be told what health care you can get; if you don't you will be fined or taxed or both and possibly be prosecuted. Is this even constitutional? Is this what you want? Many doctors are going to either retire or cut back on patients; you cannot insure 30,000,000+ more people with no significant erosion of benefits and care givers. There has to be a better idea, they should have started all over, a majority of the American people oppose this legislation.

Medicare/Medicare/Social Security are all broke and billions in debt. They should never been passed to begin with, now it is too late and will be failed entitlements in my kids lifetime and definitely my grand kids life time. Government is not the answer. We are slowly creating a Entitlement Society. Defense (Iraq/Afgan wars) have added to the deficit but remember what happened on 9-11-2001. We were attacked. We are the nation every one turns to for defense and humanitarian aid another drain on resources but we do it. Again, how much more can we give?

This legislation is loaded with kick backs, corruption, special deals, fuzzy math and down right lies. Do you feel good about all the bribes Pelosi and Reid gave to their members just to get their votes? They still just barely passed this deal with huge majorities as it was. Without these phony deals and our tax money for bribes etc this would have never seen the light of day.The CBO scored this for 10 years of spending and taxing and six years of benefits. What is that? Not going to increase the deficit and put us nearer to bankruptcy? You have your head in the sand.

The bottom line is if you stand with Pelosi, Reid, Barney Frank, Obama and there ilk we will never agree  We can agree to disagree. No harm no foul. They are taking this country down a path to the level of a mid-level European country (upgrade from banana republic ); rather than the greatest country on earth.

PS: If all you can do is blame Bush.... we really have nothing to talk about.

Jim

[alyssamma]

Jim, thanks for the reply. That was the type of thing I was hoping for. I think you summed it up when you said we'll have to agree to disagree. It seems our differences are too fundamental

Again, thanks for the clear and well thought out reply. Right or wrong, it at least is not full of over simplifications, and over exaggerations.

Kevin

[Poplady1]

WASHINGTON — When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare law in 1965, seniors got their health insurance cards less than a year later.

When President Barack Obama finally gets to hold a signing ceremony for his health care overhaul, the major expansion of coverage for uninsured workers and their families won't come until 2014 — after the next presidential election.

Parts of the plan won't be fully phased in for a decade, but ultimately 94 percent of eligible Americans would have coverage.

Here's a timeline of some changes:

THIS YEAR

— Sets up a high-risk health insurance pool to provide affordable coverage for uninsured people with medical problems.

— Starting six months after enactment, requires all health insurance plans to maintain dependent coverage for children until they turn 26; prohibits insurers from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing health problems.

— Bars insurance companies from putting lifetime dollar limits on coverage, and canceling policies except for fraud.

— Provides tax credits to help small businesses with up to 25 employees get and keep coverage for their employees.

— Begins narrowing the Medicare prescription coverage gap by providing a $250 rebate to seniors in the gap, which starts this year once they have spent $2,830. It would be fully closed by 2020.

— Reduces projected Medicare payments to hospitals, home health agencies, nursing homes, hospices and other providers.

— Imposes 10 percent sales tax on indoor tanning.

2011

— Creates a voluntary long-term care insurance program to provide a modest cash benefit helping disabled people stay in their homes, or cover nursing home costs. Benefits can begin five years after people start paying a fee for the coverage.

— Provides Medicare recipients in the prescription coverage gap with a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs; begins phasing in additional drug discounts to close the gap by 2020.

— Provides 10 percent Medicare bonus to primary care doctors and general surgeons practicing in underserved areas, such as inner cities and rural communities; improves preventive coverage.

— Freezes payments to Medicare Advantage plans, the first step in reducing payments to the private insurers who serve about one-fourth of seniors. The reductions would be phased in over three to seven years.

— Boosts funding for community health centers, which provide basic care for many low-income and uninsured people.

— Requires employers to report the value of health care benefits on employees' W-2 tax statements.

— Imposes $2.3 billion annual fee on drugmakers, increasing over time.

2012

— Sets up program to create nonprofit insurance co-ops that would compete with commercial insurers.

— Initiates Medicare payment reforms by encouraging hospitals and doctors to band together in quality-driven "accountable care organizations" along the lines of the Mayo Clinic. Sets up a pilot program to test more efficient ways of paying hospitals, doctors, nursing homes and other providers who care for Medicare patients from admission through discharge. Successful experiments would be widely adopted.

— Penalizes hospitals with high rates of preventable readmissions by reducing Medicare payments.

2013

— Standardizes insurance company paperwork, first in a series of steps to reduce administrative costs.

— Limits medical expense contributions to tax-sheltered flexible spending accounts (FSAs) to $2,500 a year, indexed for inflation. Raises threshold for claiming itemized tax deduction for medical expenses from 7.5 percent of income to 10 percent. People over 65 can still deduct medical expenses above 7.5 percent of income through 2016.

— Increases Medicare payroll tax on couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000. The tax rate on wages above those thresholds would rise to 2.35 percent from the current 1.45 percent. Also adds a new tax of 3.8 percent on income from investments.

— Imposes a 2.3 percent sales tax on medical devices. Eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids and many everyday items bought at the drug store are exempt.

2014

— Prohibits insurers from denying coverage to people with medical problems, or refusing to renew their policy. Health plans cannot limit coverage based on pre-existing conditions, or charge higher rates to those in poor health. Premiums can only vary by age (no more than 3-to-1), place of residence, family size and tobacco use.

— Coverage expansion goes into high gear as states create new health insurance exchanges — supermarkets for individuals and small businesses to buy coverage. People who already have employer coverage won't see any changes.

— Provides income-based tax credits for most consumers in the exchanges, substantially reducing costs for many. Sliding scale credits phase out completely for households above four times the federal poverty level, about $88,000 for a family of four.

— Medicaid expanded to cover low-income people up to 133 percent of the federal poverty line, about $28,300 for a family of four. Low-income childless adults covered for the first time.

— Requires citizens and legal residents to have health insurance, except in cases of financial hardship, or pay a fine to the IRS. Penalty starts at $95 per person in 2014, rising to $695 in 2016. Family penalty capped at $2,250. Penalties indexed for inflation after 2016.

— Penalizes employers with more than 50 workers if any of their workers get coverage through the exchange and receive a tax credit. The penalty is $2,000 times the total number of workers employed at the company. However, employers get to deduct the first 30 workers.

2018

— Imposes a tax on employer-sponsored health insurance worth more than $10,200 for individual coverage, $27,500 for a family plan. The tax is 40 percent of the value of the plan above the thresholds, indexed for inflation.

2020

— Doughnut hole coverage gap in Medicare prescription benefit is phased out. Seniors continue to pay the standard 25 percent of their drug costs until they reach the threshold for Medicare catastrophic coverage, when their copayments drop to 5 percent.

____

Sources: House Energy and Commerce Committee; Kaiser Family Foundation

Hope this provides some information and clarifies some qeuestions.  Blue Moose

[agrantha]

Jim

You are right, but unfortunately, because humans are inherently lazy all of this was bound to happen.  Most people, especially American’s, are not willing to go thru the torments of what it takes to succeed.  Many of them are just afraid to live in this body, but don’t know how to express it.  Most people look to other people for a solution.  Man has no solution.  So you are wasting your breathe.  The lazy people will win this battle because all they have to do is vote.  If they are too lazy to vote, they can just not work and go to the hospital anyway.

Ok Jim. 

Let’s look at the other side.  I am a law abiding citizen who has saved up a substantial amount of money and I have no debt.  I have a medical emergency and have a liver transplant.  I am hospitalized and out of work.  I deplete all of my resources over a six month period due to hospital bills and taking care of the household.  My insurance is maxed out.  What do I do now?  Be careful Jim.  This could be you.

Why don’t we do what we once did before all the medical Marvels?...die

That will fix all the health care woes because life insurance is a lot cheaper than medical insurance and goes a lot further.

[Faith Vending]

agrantha: that should have been the key element to health reform..lowering the COST..not a government take over. Let's face it everyone is only concerned about their pocket book. Lower the cost and everyone is happy again. How do you do that? Increase competition; include serious tort reform;  lower taxes, none of which this bill addresses.

I feel bad for those who stand shoulder to shoulder with Harry Reid who said a few weeks ago "It's a great day in America. Only 36K people lost their jobs last month." Talk about clueless. Although if you are with harry you probably didn't hear that quote because of the cover the main stream press provides for the clueless like Harry. I have to go to work to pay taxes. More later I'm sure.

[Ethical Locator]

As a business man who hopes to have the goodwill of the membership I hope my two cents can clarify the issues here without making anyone angry.

We have to ask ourselves two questions. What is insurance? and what do we mean when we say "people should have healthcare?"  The people for Universal Healthcare are for it because they believe 2 things which are simply that, beliefs.  A person can still be a good person and disagree with these beliefs. 

The first belief is that no one should have to pay out of pocket very much if at all for their own health care.  The second is that insurance is necessary to pay for routine medical needs.

Both of these beliefs are arguable which is why this is so contraversial.  If you believe you should not have to pay out of your pocket very much if at all for health care the only real question you have to answer is, why?  You have to pay for food, you have to pay for heat in the winter.  You even have to pay for water.  All of these things are of more immediate concern to daily life than whether or not you will see a doctor any time this week.  You also have to explain why its better for your neighbors to pay for your doctor visit than for you to pay for it yourself.

The final question is my own personal pet peave.  If you have a car and you buy insurance so you can can get free oil changes you are a very poor money manager.  Somehow, Americans have been convinced, and I don't know how otherwise intelligent people have been talked into this, but are you really better off paying $300 or more a month for routine visits to the doctor that cost at most $200 per visit?

Millions dont have health insurance because they know its a waste of money.  Insurance is for catastrophic purposes not for routine use.  It costs so much because we use it for the equivalent of oil changes when we should only use it to overhaul the engine or replace the transmission on those rare occasions that that sort of thing is needed.

Steve is right.  Buy high deductible catastrophic insurance and you are smart.  Buy Cadillac insurnace that lets you see a doctor and pay 20 bucks and you are being screwed.

Finally,  I go to the doctor when my son or myself are sick.  I pay out of pocket.  It doesn't cost very much to see a docotor. In fact, routine vistis generally dont cost much more than have a mechanic tune up your car.

Sure there are people who can't afford those tune ups but taxpayers already provide medicare and medicade for these people.  The idea that average joe can't access health care unless bill gates pays the bills really isn't supportable by anything unless we say that it is unfair someone can't have a plasma tv because he has to pay his medical bills.

Thats my view at least.

[caserri]

Wow!

Umm, match.... fuse... 

[snack dude]

could not have said it any better than ethical locator.

Just remember that people who think everyone has the right to healthcare want to do it with your money not theirs. which is a typical liberal philosophy.

I have told several of my customers today that we are all free to drink, smoke and eat whatever we want because were covered. Forget about healthy choices and goofy stuff like that,,,, were covered.

If I start being unhealthy now, in four years I can disssove the buisness get rid of my assets have a couple of heart attacks and be first on the list when the whole program kicks in.

Let everybody else pay my doctor bills. Sounds fair to  me.

Okay,,,Okay,,,,,I know I am really twisted

[alyssamma]

Snack Dude, not true at all. And, that is the type of speech that does nothing to have a healthy debate. I am a liberal and a small business owner. I have no problems whatsoever paying "more" of my *own* $ for everyone to be covered. You shouldn't stereotype like that.

If we want to have a healthy debate, let's stop the name calling and finger pointing. It seems that most people who have posted who are against the bill, are calling the congressmen names, saying our country is going down the toilet, and saying we are losing our freedom. Quite simply, that's ridiculous. And, it is impossible to have a discussion about the *facts* with that type of speech.

There are two issues here. The first is the concept of whether or not universal healthcare should be provided. The second is about the bill that was just passed - is it good or not.

The first question is an ethical one. I personally would say "yes", but I know others would differ. I do know that most of the industrialized world has universal healthcare.

The second question is more concrete. I personally don't like the bill. I've stated why in earlier posts. However, in no way does this bill do the things people here are suggesting. Poplady gave an excellent post about what the bill does. It doesn't mandate what insurance you get. There is no gov plan. If you have insurance today, other than things being *easier* for you, nothing will likely change.

The thought that this bill is going to somehow ruin this country is amazing. We have a serious drug problem, education problem, crime problem, just to name a few things. All of these are far worse than the gov saying if you can afford to purchase healthcare, you must purchase it.

While this has been a fun thread, and I must remember the "thank" Steve for starting it, I'm going to have to leave it alone. It seems that no one wants to have a serious debate about the real facts. It is all exaggeration, fear mongering, etc. If someone does want to discuss this at an intelligent level, please PM me.

Thanks.

Kevin

[Ethical Locator]

Kevin,

I believe I have made some dispassionate remarks that argue against the basic premises behind this debate without being insulting to anyone.  If I have failed to do that it was against my intention.

Let me state for the record that it is not hysterical to question whether this bill will do damage to the country.  If this bill is revenue nuetral, which it doesn't claim to be, then it won't harm the country.  Any thing which is not paid for and adds to the government tab is going to damage this country because we can't keep borrowing untold trillions of dollars for ever and ever.

As a studant of economics I was uneasy with "W" spending billions of dollars like it was play money.  Now Obama wants to spend trillions like its water.  This will have consequences and probably not good ones.  The taxes necessary to get us out of the financial straits we are heading into will be so high that it will be difficult to explain how they are consistent with economic freedom. If the government takes or directs the spending of more than half of your income you are not free economically under almost anyone's definition.  Our national debt gaurantees most people, not just the greedy rich, will be paying that particular piper very soon.    Since most people agree that economic freedom is a worthwhile freedom to enjoy I doubt most Americans will consider the loss of such to be anything less than a complete tragedy.

Also, This bill does not simply require you to purchase health insurance, which by itself is an infringement on liberty and probably can not withstand a constitutional challenge. 

This bill also creates economic incentives, we can argue whether this was intended or not, to dump existing health coverage (doctors provide health care not insurance companies) in favor of non existant and unfunded government programs.  Obama and Pelosi say over and over again this bill reduce tax payer subsidies, the deficit and health insurance premiums all at the same time.

Very smart people whose jobs it is to understand the ramifications of these things have as yet been unable to explain how all this will happen.  Obama and Pelosi never try, they just say it will happen and millions of nodding heads agree.  I want multiple independant sources to confirm this and explain how it will happen before I believe it because frankly it sounds like very bad salesmanship to me.  I feel like we just just bought  a used car from a couple slicksters.

[kai1836]

  Kevin,

  While I can respect your opinion I must say this is why this debate can be so enraging. I know this legislation will hurt me down the road and I know it will limit my longevity here. When something threatens my life and well being I take it personally.  I have been through unimaginable hell with my health and will gladly face it as long as I can. However I prefer that my illness kill me instead of a bunch of politicians.

[snack dude]

touchie touchie touchie

So then is it only a serious discussion if I agree with you.

So If I have a different viewpoint then I must not be serious.

By the way I just read on the AP wire that ten states have already lined up to sue the federal goverment over the constitutionallity ( I know it is misspelled) of the bill.

I hope my state is one of them.

[Hillbilly]

This thread has many valid points from a lot of people.

I wanted to add a couple more observations.

Kevin,  You stated that the post office charged a fee for delivering mail to your house.  That is not always the case. I do not and can not get home delivery.  I have to go to the post office to get the mail.  An added expense  on my part from a government plan. I am afraid some black holes will exist for some people in the health care plan.

I was in Germany in 1990 and 1991.  They had a national plan and I assume they still do.  I spoke to a young lady about it and while tobacco products and some other things were taxed heavily to pay for it, it seemed to be working.

[s.weir]

Here is my 2 sense:

There are two sides to this.

The first is what 85-90% of Canadians think and this is that we are happy with our health care and confused by yours lol.  We like the fact that everyone gets equal service and even though some American media say we have long line ups etc. we don't at all lol.  We have had it for over 40 years now and other then the occasional person who wants more privatization (the other 15-10%) we have been pretty happy with it and it works well.  Your new system seems odd to me though.  It seems like it was trying to get to the point we are, but had to compromise and it ended up only half way there.  Something interesting to note too as far taxing goes though is that it is a lot cheaper to institute public health care then it is for every citizen to get the same coverage themselves.  Also in Canada we aren't up to the will of the insurance companies over whether or not we are covered for anything.  I like our system and personally I think it's the way to go.

[Poplady1]

We ran into a bus load of vacationing folks from Canada in Charleston last week.  They joined us for dinner and we had a wonderful discussion about health care in our two countries.  They seemed to be of the same mind as you.  Very confused about our health care and very happy with your health care.

Maybe if we keep working at it we will ge there someday. 

Blue Moose

[s.weir]

Yeah like I understand both sides of the argument but we are really happy with how it is. 

[Faith Vending]

Snack Dude, not true at all. And, that is the type of speech that does nothing to have a healthy debate. I am a liberal and a small business owner. I have no problems whatsoever paying "more" of my *own* $ for everyone to be covered. You shouldn't stereotype like that.

If we want to have a healthy debate, let's stop the name calling and finger pointing. It seems that most people who have posted who are against the bill, are calling the congressmen names, saying our country is going down the toilet, and saying we are losing our freedom. Quite simply, that's ridiculous. And, it is impossible to have a discussion about the *facts* with that type of speech.

There are two issues here. The first is the concept of whether or not universal healthcare should be provided. The second is about the bill that was just passed - is it good or not.

The first question is an ethical one. I personally would say "yes", but I know others would differ. I do know that most of the industrialized world has universal healthcare.

The second question is more concrete. I personally don't like the bill. I've stated why in earlier posts. However, in no way does this bill do the things people here are suggesting. Poplady gave an excellent post about what the bill does. It doesn't mandate what insurance you get. There is no gov plan. If you have insurance today, other than things being *easier* for you, nothing will likely change.

The thought that this bill is going to somehow ruin this country is amazing. We have a serious drug problem, education problem, crime problem, just to name a few things. All of these are far worse than the gov saying if you can afford to purchase healthcare, you must purchase it.

While this has been a fun thread, and I must remember the "thank" Steve for starting it, I'm going to have to leave it alone. It seems that no one wants to have a serious debate about the real facts. It is all exaggeration, fear mongering, etc. If someone does want to discuss this at an intelligent level, please PM me.

Thanks.

Kevin

Unfortunate you feel that way Kevin; I do have a question however; being a liberal, what should be the role of government in our world. I am not looking for a debate; I am really curious. If you are tired of this and don't want to answer, I understand.

[Poplady1]

I am not Kevin but I did see this question in the National Review.  I copied a portion of the answer:

Our government’s role is to fix large complex problems that cannot be fixed by individuals including the defense of our country. The government fixes the problems by establishing policy.

Establishing new policy is extremely difficult with the 3 branches of government.  Once policy is set it becomes law which is binding.  Liberals work hard to create sound policy for the good of all people and conservatives work hard to create sound policy for the rights of the individual.  Independents sit back and read the policy as each party argues their side.  Then they determine how it will affect their life, community or environment and they vote accordingly. The independent vote is now becoming a strong third party in our country which swings our current elections sometimes to the right and at times to the left.

Our form of government works best when very strong opposing views on important policy is presented by each political party.  Our elected officials hash out their arguments to develop a finished piece of legislation which is presented to the House and Senate.  However if one party refuses to debate or take part in the discussion our system is weakened. 

Here are three very solid predictions for our country in the near future.

(1) One of our parties may fail which would be very bad for our system of government.

(2)  70% of the women having abortions are minority citizens needing help to prevent that choice. We need to develop additional incentatives to help these women carry their babies to full term by offering additional financial assistance or tax credits.

 

(3)  Minority voters now represent 54% of the voting bloc which gives that bloc the power to set policy for the first time in our history.  We need to recognize that fact to work together to design policy reflecting the needs of everyone in our system whether conservative, liberal or independent.

The midterm elections of 2010 will be exciting to watch as our country continues to change the makeup of our registered voters.  With conservatives having 27% of the voting public, Independents  16% and liberals with 44% it should be a very interesting event. 

[Faith Vending]

Keep an eye on your wallets everyone....they are coming after us and this is just the beginning. Keep an eye out for the cost of this monster and the procedures they used to get it done.

[whaletail116]

I'm hearing Obama speak on Thursday.  Should be pretty interesting.

[davidsurvz]

I have very little time these days to be on the forum.  But I would like to make a couple of points on this. We have free / cheap health care for people in this country who "can't afford it" It's called medicare. If you are talking about treatment for serious illness and disease that should be what health insurance is for. Not for everyday cuts, scrapes and bruises colds, etc. If consumers want insurance companies  to offer different tiers of coverage they should be able to do so. If they want to offer a package that covers basic Dr. visits, basic prescriptions, basic whatever they should be able to. If insurance companies want to offer plans that cover everything under the sun and catastrophic coverage or just basic visits and everything in-between they should be able to . People should be able to choose their own coverage needs and also be able to choose not to have coverage if they don't want it. I think the free market and competition with LESS government restriction control and regulation would resolve many of the cost issues that consumers face relating to health care.

Well,

I'm out of time and can't finish my points or proof read / edit................

Might be back later.

YES I OPPOSE "UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE" (as it's being labeled / sold)

[agrantha]

Jim

There should be no government.  But unfortunately, humans won't behave.

Anton