What? 2000 pages and still not fixed???

[RogueGypsy]

I laughed out loud when I read this. What a masterful stroke of the pen, this is becoming a fiasco.

Health Care For All Leaves 23 Million Uninsured - Shots - Health News Blog : NPR


When President Obama signed health care overhaul into law Tuesday, did he fulfill a campaign promise to "bring health care to all?"
A map of the uninsured in the U.S.


The short answer is no. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the overhaul law, as it expected to be amended by House fixes, would eventually cover 32 million more Americans. But that would leave 23 million that would still be uninsured by 2019. So maybe it's not universal coverage? But who gets left out?

Reading further in the article, it appears those left out are the very people it was claimed to be for, this whole campaign has been a sham from the beginning. This article coming from NPR (does it get more Liberal?) literally made me laugh out loud.

I think we need Mike Holmes to write the bill -"If you're gonna do it, do it right the first time."-

WTF????




...

[rahl]

Well, I think this bill was pretty weak because that's all that could get passed. The republicans offered absolutely nothing that would cover even just those 32 million. Let alone everyone.

It's not perfect, but it's all that could have realistically passed at this point in history.

[flstf]

I agree, this bill is far too conservative. It should have been structured with single payer and cover everyone.

[WinchesterAA]

Laughin and cryin at the same time is a hell of an experience.

[SecretMethod70]

Originally Posted by flstf

I agree, this bill is far too conservative. It should have been structured with single payer and cover everyone.

But, flstf, that's.... socialism! *feigned shock*

[flstf]

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

But, flstf, that's.... socialism! *feigned shock*

This bill has been critized for months by liberals for not going far enough especially when the single payer and even the public option was taken out. I think those like RogueGypsy are correct in pointing out the people who will not be covered. I am surprised at the amount of criticism Republicans have with this bill considering how conservative it is.

[SecretMethod70]

Sorry, guess my text wasn't clear, I agree with you that single-payer is best. Unfortunately, as rahl points out, this bill is "all that could have realistically passed at this point in history."

[dogzilla]

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

The short answer is no. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the overhaul law, as it expected to be amended by House fixes, would eventually cover 32 million more Americans. But that would leave 23 million that would still be uninsured by 2019. So maybe it's not universal coverage? But who gets left out?

We can knock this down by 7 million right off the bat. The author talks about 7 million illegal immigrants, sorry *undocumented immigrants*. Any immigrant who is not here legally is among the first people I would boot off any government entitlement list. If they want to pay for their own medical care, fine. If they want me to pay for it, forget about it. I'll help them pack.

[rahl]

Originally Posted by dogzilla

We can knock this down by 7 million right off the bat. The author talks about 7 million illegal immigrants, sorry *undocumented immigrants*. Any immigrant who is not here legally is among the first people I would boot off any government entitlement list. If they want to pay for their own medical care, fine. If they want me to pay for it, forget about it. I'll help them pack.

Illegal immigrants are specifically excluded in this bill.

[RogueGypsy]

Originally Posted by flstf

This bill has been critized for months by liberals for not going far enough especially when the single payer and even the public option was taken out. I think those like RogueGypsy are correct in pointing out the people who will not be covered. I am surprised at the amount of criticism Republicans have with this bill considering how conservative it is.

I think that's where a lot of the criticism is coming from. I'm still reading the bill so can only go by heresay, but for all the pomp and promises it doesn't really do much for those it was intended to help.

My view on most of the adversarial responses is the lack of anything tangible coming from such a huge outlay.

I'd also like to point out that a bill written in favor of the people that was concise and well thought out, would likely pass with little opposition no matter who penned it.

Time will tell what will actually happen here, but four glaring issues go against it's success from the onset; as mentioned, it is not helping those who need it most. The unions are exempt not only from the plan, but from the taxes to fund it, (why?). Those who drafted and those who voted for it are exempt. And it takes huge a cut from medicare -the largest group of citizens that need medical insurance- to help fund it.

By definition if it is 'Universal', it is all encompassing. Everyone is on it and it helps everyone. As passed, this bill is severely flawed and I believe will hurt more than it will help.

Say for example I own a restaurant. Most of my 75 employees are part-time. But under the new bill I will have to ensure them, which is going to be an outlay of $90,000+ dollars a year. From a business stand point, there are now 75 unemployed restaurant workers and I'm looking for a job. Imagine that multiplied by a few thousand restaurants around the county and we're looking at huge unemployment numbers and a choice between McDonald's or Le bec' Fin. Would you like that super sized? Thank you, drive through.

May reason help us all.



...

[dksuddeth]

it seems to me that if the dems had the majority anyway, how would the republicans have been able to stop a more liberal bill?

[RogueGypsy]

Originally Posted by dogzilla

We can knock this down by 7 million right off the bat. The author talks about 7 million illegal immigrants, sorry *undocumented immigrants*. Any immigrant who is not here legally is among the first people I would boot off any government entitlement list. If they want to pay for their own medical care, fine. If they want me to pay for it, forget about it. I'll help them pack.

You will still be paying for it, like you are now with cost of emergency room visits. 7 million being the most optimistic number I've ever read. I am very certain that number might cover California, well, maybe the greater L.A. area. Oh but wait. That's next on the agenda, there will be no more 'undocumented aliens', they're all going to be granted amnesty. How is that going to work when all of those cash jobs turn into tax paying/health insuring jobs? I'm thinking there will be a whole lot of hungry, unemployed, newly documented resident aliens in a city near you, with medical insurance you're paying for.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

I think that's where a lot of the criticism is coming from. I'm still reading the bill so can only go by heresay, but for all the pomp and promises it doesn't really do much for those it was intended to help.

My view on most of the adversarial responses is the lack of anything tangible coming from such a huge outlay.

I'd also like to point out that a bill written in favor of the people that was concise and well thought out, would likely pass with little opposition no matter who penned it.

Time will tell what will actually happen here, but four glaring issues go against it's success from the onset; as mentioned, it is not helping those who need it most. The unions are exempt not only from the plan, but from the taxes to fund it, (why?). Those who drafted and those who voted for it are exempt. And it takes huge a cut from medicare -the largest group of citizens that need medical insurance- to help fund it.

By definition if it is 'Universal', it is all encompassing. Everyone is on it and it helps everyone. As passed, this bill is severely flawed and I believe will hurt more than it will help.

Say for example I own a restaurant. Most of my 75 employees are part-time. But under the new bill I will have to ensure them, which is going to be an outlay of $90,000+ dollars a year. From a business stand point, there are now 75 unemployed restaurant workers and I'm looking for a job. Imagine that multiplied by a few thousand restaurants around the county and we're looking at huge unemployment numbers and a choice between McDonald's or Le bec' Fin. Would you like that super sized? Thank you, drive through.

May reason help us all.



...

It helps 30+ million uninsured...that is a huge improvement by any reasonable standard.

It helps nearly 200 million currently insured by prohibiting excluding pre-existing conditions and setting limits on out-of-pocket expenses, among other benefits (free preventive care, including such procedures as colonoscopies and mammograms).

The unions are not exempt from the plan.

Nor are members of Congress who will be required to join the Insurance Exchange when it is operational.

It does not cut Medicare...it cuts excessive payments to Medicare Advantage providers.

But, you're correct...it is not universal and it does not happen immediately.

[loquitur]

best way to cover everyone is to set things up so that medical care is a lot cheaper. There are ways to do it, but there is no graft in it for legislators so they won't do it.

[dogzilla]

Originally Posted by rahl

Illegal immigrants are specifically excluded in this bill.

I understand that's the wording of the bill. However the author of this article is including these 7 million illegal immigrants in the total number he's complaining still lack coverage. I'm one of the people that's going to insist that no one who is here illegally should get any of my tax money.

[RogueGypsy]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

It helps 30+ million uninsured...that is a huge improvement by any reasonable standard.

It helps nearly 200 million currently insured by prohibiting excluding pre-existing conditions and setting limits on out-of-pocket expenses, among other benefits (free preventive care, including such procedures as colonoscopies and mammograms).

The unions are not exempt from the plan.

The 'Cadillac' union health care plan is indeed exempt from taxes meant to fund the bill.

Nor are members of Congress who will be required to join the Insurance Exchange when it is operational.

It does not cut Medicare...it cuts excessive payments to Medicare Advantage providers.

But, you're correct...it is not universal and it does not happen immediately.

Beginning in 2014, more far-reaching measures will begin to take effect. States would be required to set up new "exchanges," or insurance marketplaces, that would offer a variety of health care plans for small businesses and individuals who do not get coverage from their employers. Government subsidies would be available to those earning up to 400% of poverty. Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage would be fined, and for the first time, most people would be required to obtain health coverage - either at work, or by purchasing it on their own - or pay a penalty.

All of this would be paid for in two ways: By reducing spending on Medicare by hundreds of billions, and by imposing a set of new taxes, including a 40% levy on certain high-priced insurance policies.


Obama's Health Care Reform Bill Passed - Yahoo! News


..

[roachboy]

other folk have said the same thing--i don't think the bill goes anywhere near far enough. i think free access to basic health care is a fundamental human right. i am not necessarily convinced that the uk/canadian model is anything like the best alternative---the french system seems to me better.

the republicans bear a very significant responsibility for every last shortcoming in the bill so it's a bit ironic to see all this hand waving and complaining from more conservative folk about the bill when it's their representatives who obstructed what there was on the table, watered it down, weakened it, fought it, etc.

so i dont know what you folk wanted.

but personally, i wanted a much stronger, clearly formulated type of universal health coverage.

but this is better than nothing, and certainly an improvement over what has been in effect up to this point.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

All of this would be paid for in two ways: By reducing spending on Medicare by hundreds of billions, and by imposing a set of new taxes, including a 40% levy on certain high-priced insurance policies.


Obama's Health Care Reform Bill Passed - Yahoo! News

..

THe reduced spending on Medicare is cutting the subsidies to the Medicare Advantage providers, saving an estimated $150+ billion...and re-bidding those services to other insurance companies.

Those MA providers had agreed initially to limit costs to 5% over Medicare guidelines and have been averaging over 15% of the guidelines for the last 8-10 years.

It does not cut services to seniors.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by roachboy

the republicans bear a very significant responsibility for every last shortcoming in the bill

did democrats have a majority?

[flstf]

Originally Posted by roachboy

the republicans bear a very significant responsibility for every last shortcoming in the bill so it's a bit ironic to see all this hand waving and complaining from more conservative folk about the bill when it's their representatives who obstructed what there was on the table, watered it down, weakened it, fought it, etc.

I can halfway understand the Republicans blocking this bill as they did not want to give Obama even the perception of a victory for political reasons including catering to the teabaggers. What I find harder to accept is the Democrats passing such a watered down bill even though they had the numbers. I guess this bill can be thought of as a staring point for better things to come.

[SecretMethod70]

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

I'd also like to point out that a bill written in favor of the people that was concise and well thought out, would likely pass with little opposition no matter who penned it.

Sorry, as someone who specifically works in electoral politics, this is just plain naïve. God knows many of us wish it were true, but it's not.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

it seems to me that if the dems had the majority anyway, how would the republicans have been able to stop a more liberal bill?

As someone who works in Democratic electoral politics, you underestimate the Democratic party's ability to screw itself over with self-doubt That may or may not relate to the quote in my sig; my guess is we'd disagree on that point

[RogueGypsy]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

It helps 30+ million uninsured...that is a huge improvement by any reasonable standard.

It helps nearly 200 million currently insured by prohibiting excluding pre-existing conditions and setting limits on out-of-pocket expenses, among other benefits (free preventive care, including such procedures as colonoscopies and mammograms).

The unions are not exempt from the plan.

Nor are members of Congress who will be required to join the Insurance Exchange when it is operational.

It does not cut Medicare...it cuts excessive payments to Medicare Advantage providers.

Cuts to Medicare Advantage: The bill includes a new competitive bidding program that will
cut $120 billion from Medicare Advantage (MA).37 Plans would have to submit bids, and the
benchmark paid to plans would be the average of the local plan bids. The benchmarks currently
range from about 100 percent to more than 150 percent of local per capita spending in the feefor-
service sector. Plans that bid below the benchmark would receive 100 percent of the
difference and must use those funds to reduce cost-sharing or provide other benefits (but could
no longer use rebates to subsidize Part B or D premiums). Plans that bid above the benchmark
would have to charge the difference to their enrollees. The provision also creates performance
bonus payments based on a plan’s level of care coordination and care management and
achievement on quality rankings. According to CBO, this change will result in reduced extra
benefits, like vision care, free flu shots, and dental coverage.38 Average additional benefits
offered by MA plans would drop from $135 to $49 per month in 2019. Enrollment in MA plans
in 2019 is projected to be 2.6 million lower than under current law.
The bill includes language from an amendment offered by Senator Nelson (Florida) to the
Finance Committee bill that grandfathered extra benefits for current MA enrollees in high-cost
areas of the country where average plan bids are at or below 75 percent of local fee-for-service
costs. The provision would apply to certain MA bidding regions, not to states as a whole. The
extra benefits would be reduced by five percent each year beginning in 2013. Additionally, the
HHS Secretary would provide “transitional” benefits in 2012 to MA beneficiaries in some areas
of the country who would otherwise experience a “significant reduction” in extra benefits. A
new provision was added that grants the Secretary the authority to deny MA plan bids if the bid
proposes a “significant” increase in cost-sharing or decrease in benefits. The bill includes new
bonus payments for coordination of care programs.


H.R.3590: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress



But, you're correct...it is not universal and it does not happen immediately.

[Charlatan]

So this is the new spin for the Conservative sorts to throw about? To follow the logic of the OP we have some options:

1) The Democrats could have opted to change nothing.
2) The Democrats could have pushed for much more change.
3) The Democrats could have tried to pass what they could as a reasonable first step.

Clearly number one was not going to happen given their campaign platform and the real need for change in the health care system. I suppose they could have done what other Administrations have done in the past but they didn't.

With number two, which seems to be what the OP is asking for, the Democrats could have pushed for a Single Pay or Public Option and gotten 100% coverage. I would suggest there are a number of reasons why this didn't happen. a) the self doubt that Smeth points to, b) the lack of support from many Democrats for these options, look at the voting it was not a Universal acclimation for the existing bill by all elected Democrats. This agreement was a compromise and given the over-the-top fear mongering that was emanating from the Republicans and Conservative supporters and elected officials, what would you expect?

It doesn't matter that they had the majority. They listened to what was being said and attempted to compromise as much as they could, on the belief that this was a step in the right direction. Forward motion is better than stagnation.

I just find it *very* funny that this is the new spin... Is that all you could do?

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

Thanks for posting the section of the bill to show it does pretty much what I said.....cuts the over-payments to MA providers and puts it out to competitive bid.

Most of the serivces "cut" from MA will be provided in general Medicare coverage...but you are correct, a small percentage of MA beneficiaries will pay nominally higer fees for their free "extra" MA benefits like vision care, gym memberships (assuming a high bid provider wins the contract as rather than a lower bid insurance company willing to take 5% over fee for service guidelines as opposed to the current 15% average ripoff now in place) ....and the savings is $120 billion (sorry, I said $150 b).

No one will not lose ANY basic Medicare benefits.....just one of those myths.

And all Medicare beneficiaries will start saving on prescriptions....starting at $250/year to cover the "doughnut hole"

Or you can complain the bill does nothing about the unsustainable cost of Medicare on one hand and complain when the bill cuts subsidies to the MA insurance companies without cutting basic benefits to beneficiaries on the other hand....which is what the opposition has done.

[robot_parade]

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

Reading further in the article, it appears those left out are the very people it was claimed to be for, this whole campaign has been a sham from the beginning. This article coming from NPR (does it get more Liberal?) literally made me laugh out loud.

At least 1/3 of the people not covered (as estimated here) are not Americans - they're illegal (or 'undocumented') immigrants Can you even imagine the firestorm if the bill covered them??

Of the rest, they are people who aren't covered by the mandate because of a very low income - but these people are also the people who will get subsidies to buy private insurance. Even so, some people will not sign up - that's absolutely inevitable in any voluntary system, especially an 'opt-in' one - some people won't properly fill out the paperwork, some people won't just to be curmudgeonly, etc.

What we (evil commie socialist liberals) wanted was some sort of real government healthcare - essentially, in some form or another, everyone would have healthcare coverage.

Why don't we have that? Compromise! The conservative wing of the Democratic party (not to mention the entire Republican party) simply would not go along with government healthcare. So you get a compromise, that isn't government healthcare, and by definition will not cover all Americans, for the reasons I just stated.

If you don't like it, vote for the most liberal candidate for running for congress in your district in the next election.

[RogueGypsy]

Originally Posted by robot_parade

At least 1/3 of the people not covered (as estimated here) are not Americans - they're illegal (or 'undocumented') immigrants Can you even imagine the firestorm if the bill covered them??

Of the rest, they are people who aren't covered by the mandate because of a very low income - but these people are also the people who will get subsidies to buy private insurance. Even so, some people will not sign up - that's absolutely inevitable in any voluntary system, especially an 'opt-in' one - some people won't properly fill out the paperwork, some people won't just to be curmudgeonly, etc.

What we (evil commie socialist liberals) wanted was some sort of real government healthcare - essentially, in some form or another, everyone would have healthcare coverage.

Why don't we have that? Compromise! The conservative wing of the Democratic party (not to mention the entire Republican party) simply would not go along with government healthcare. So you get a compromise, that isn't government healthcare, and by definition will not cover all Americans, for the reasons I just stated.

If you don't like it, vote for the most liberal candidate for running for congress in your district in the next election.

Of the many, many things I don't like about this bill. Few to none would be solved by the election of extremists on either side of the spectrum.

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]



“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]



“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

Because the IRS has been deemed the collecting agency in this bill, if you do not have your MANDATORY insurance, you will be subject to tax evasion laws. Including, but not limited too; fines, jail time and seizure of personal property. How is that good for anybody.

You can argue that it's not mandatory, but you are required to have insurance or pay a 2.5% excise tax as a penalty. That sounds mandatory to me.

As for the illegals, there is very clear language saying they will not be covered. However, two things make that language useless. The first being proof of citizenship, not proof of identity being the determining factor for qualification. A huge number of illegals work under false identities. So all they have to do is show a fake drivers license and bingo, they have insurance. The second is the Amnesty law now in the works.

Why would you want government health care? I understand and agree with health care reform, it's needed. But what has the government ever done to make you think it can run anything efficiently? Or effectively for that matter? We are talking about a group of people who pay $1000 for a hammer. Who opted out of the very plan they require us to participate in. Who voted themselves lifetime retirement plans -both sides voted- equal to their current salaries with increases for inflation -Wouldn't you like to do that at you job? I sure would, but we can't because there's accountability in the private sector- and an insurance plan that we all should have, but apparently they are the only ones good enough to participate in, with our money. With this bill they created 111 new government offices and thousands of new government jobs -2000 in the IRS alone to collect for the new plan-, while simultaneously destroying 10's of thousands of private sector jobs -were we get our money-. Not forgetting, they are doing all of this with our money. They are not a business, they produce no tangible product, but they spend like drunken sailors, our money. And these are the people you want in charge of your health care? That's a joke right??

Say what you want about other models of Socialized medicine and government run programs. In countries where the government respects the people, they can work. Most are going bankrupt due to the inherent inefficiency of bureaucracy, some are not. But our government lost respect for us long, long ago and prove it openly on a continuing basis. They flat-out lie to us with smiles on their faces, when caught, they apologize and move on. Not fixing the problem, just move on. They vote themselves raises. They act as though they are above the law. They say anything they think we want to hear, to get what they want. Do you really think they have our best interests in mind? What have they done to suggest that?

If you want a good picture of how this is going to work go to any; DMV, welfare, unemployment, city, county, state or federal office. Take a number and imagine you have a serious medical problem while you're waiting. Good luck. Oh and by the way, after your visit, probably before you get out the door any and all fees will be electronically removed from your bank account.





....

---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------

One day after the Senate’s mammoth, 2,700-page health bill became law, the Associated Press has discovered the legislation doesn’t deliver on a key promise.

Despite repeated assurances that the measure would provide immediate health coverage for children with pre-existing medical conditions, it doesn’t.

Just two days before the crucial House vote, at his nationally televised pep rally for the bill, President Obama promised: “Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”

Meeting with House Democrats the next day, he forcefully reiterated the claim:

This year … parents who are worried about getting coverage for their children with pre-existing conditions now are assured that insurance companies have to give them coverage — this year.

You’ll recall that, on March 10, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced:

We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.

It seems even the president had to wait until after passage to find out what was really in the bill. Turns out, some kids with pre-existing conditions will have to wait, too. Another four years. The iron-clad guarantee of coverage won’t kick in until then.

Notes the Associated Press: “Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee…. That’s the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.”

---------- Post added at 03:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------

How is this bill going to drive prices down if it imposes a 2.5% tax on pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufactures and health insurance providers? Oh, and a 40% tax on 'Cadillac plans' -except of course for the government and union plans-.

So I guess if you do anything to support medicine outside of the government, you will be taxed -that will be passed on to the end users-. And if you can afford a better than the government plan, you too will be taxed -horrendously- for you ability. Yes you will be paying the tax as the end user passed on by the provider.

---------- Post added at 03:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:07 PM ----------

the CBO cost estimate looks at a 10-year window that includes 10 years of revenue collection but only six or seven years of outlays.

[rahl]

Good lord, haven't we spent enough time and enough threads dedicated to this. If you refuse to read the bill, understand whats in it, and stop repeating the same proveably false BS, why do you persist?

[RogueGypsy]

Originally Posted by rahl

Good lord, haven't we spent enough time and enough threads dedicated to this. If you refuse to read the bill, understand whats in it, and stop repeating the same proveably false BS, why do you persist?

I am reading the bill, everything in my posts here are directly from reading the bill. It takes a little time to read and understand 2000+ pages of bureaucratic double speak, references, definitions and the implication of said bill.

So what exactly is "the same proveably false BS"?

Have you read the bill? Please enlighten me, oh great prover of false BS.

(condescending verbiage returned in favor)

[boink]

If you want a good picture of how this is going to work go to any; DMV, welfare, unemployment, city, county, state or federal office

I have been to the DMV and the unemployment office, traffic court and I got what I needed just fine. no problem. I mean shure I was in a line for a short bit, nothing unreasonable. also privately owned licence agencies like for transferring title for a used car or getting tabs renewed, no issues at all.


single payer nationalised health care dosn't scare me in the slightest. what scares me is paying 1/3 of my wage to a health insurance company for what has been (so far knock on wood) pretty much nothing since I went off my moms policy at 18 or so, now I'm 48 and haven't ever had health insurance.

[RogueGypsy]

Originally Posted by boink

I have been to the DMV and the unemployment office, traffic court and I got what I needed just fine. no problem. I mean shure I was in a line for a short bit, nothing unreasonable. also privately owned licence agencies like for transferring title for a used car or getting tabs renewed, no issues at all.


single payer nationalised health care dosn't scare me in the slightest. what scares me is paying 1/3 of my wage to a health insurance company for what has been (so far knock on wood) pretty much nothing since I went off my moms policy at 18 or so, now I'm 48 and haven't ever had health insurance.

Damn I want to move to you town. Last time I was at the DMV it was a 3hr wait. I use the private venues for title transfer, tabs too. Way faster. County office for permits, HA! Had to go back on 3 different days to see 'the guy', then 3 months for the permit.

I've had several Health insurance plans through employers, none were cheap and the only thing I ever used them for was vision and dental, so I don't bother any more.

Unfortunately it doesn't look like this deal will be any more affordable.

From the CBO report last Nov.

"Among nongroup enrollees who would not receive new subsidies, average premiums would increase by somewhat less than the 10 percent to 13 percent difference for the nongroup market as a whole because some factors discussed below would have different effects for those enrollees than for those receiving subsidies.

The amount of subsidy received would depend on the enrollee’s income relative to the federal poverty level (FPL) according to a specified schedule (see Table 2, appended).5
The legislation would have much smaller effects on premiums for employment-based coverage, which would account for about five-sixths of the total health insurance market. In the small group market, which is defined in this analysis as consisting of employers with 50 or fewer workers, CBO and JCT estimate that the change in the average premium per person resulting from the legislation could range from an increase of 1 percent to a reduction of 2 percent in 2016 (relative to current law).Under the proposal, the subsidy levels in each market would be tied to the premium of the second cheapest plan providing the “silver” level of coverage (that is, paying 70 percent of enrollees’ covered health care costs, on average). CBO and JCT have estimated that, in 2016, the average premium nationwide for those “reference plans” would be about $5,200 for single coverage and about $14,100 for family coverage. The difference between those figures and the average nongroup premiums under the proposal that are cited above ($5,800 and $15,200, respectively) reflects the expectation that many people would opt for a plan that was more expensive than the reference plan, to obtain either a higher amount of coverage or other valued features (such as a broader network of providers or less tightly managed benefits)."

$400 a month for an individual doesn't sound affordable to me. And the Secretary of Health has the ability to raise premiums as need or sees fit.

[rahl]

https://getwhatyouwant.ceridian.com/mk/get/HCALERT1

I'm posting this in all health care threads. Just got it in an email from ceridian corp. They are a Flexible benefits administrator for all my major accounts.

[boink]

you live in the Great NorthWet ? heh I'm in Seattle so maybe you already do. maybe I'm lucky

I agree, $400/mo is anal rape. I don't see why group rates are wrapped around work, why not family groups regardless of age or weather they are dependent on each other ? or neighborhood groups or ..? the company I work for has like 12 employees and my bosses brother in law is a Dr. so he can get a special deal I spose.

I dunno, I just assume I'm fucked either way. the American worker is born to lubricate the machine of the rich, nothing more.

[remy1492]

Originally Posted by roachboy

i think free access to basic health care is a fundamental human right.

And with
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]


What you're saying is that people who work, should pay for those who may not work, and if they don't ay they go to jail and lose big time?

I have a right not to go to jail just as much.

At what point is EVERYTHING a human right at the cost to other humans?

[boink]

hard to say. for instance, I have no kids, so I don't think I should pay taxes for schools. however it bothers me worse to think how horribly uneducated some people are, and what masses of uneducated people do. I'm willing to pay for a general populace of educated neighbors I guess. I mean, how bad are you willing to let it get for the masses before you decide you'd be willing to chip in for an overall more pleasant society.
I drive by 6-7 off ramp beggars on my way home every day and 2-3 homeless encampments. then at work I install custom metalwork in high end offices and mostly homes. 10 years ago I can't think of any off ramp beggars and the rich people spend CRAZY money on stuff and it only ever gotten bigger.

my girlfriends brother is a hopeless alcoholic. it's cheaper for society to house him and give him a little money for food than it is drag him off the streets and run him to the emergency room and detox all the time. so he gets a free apartment and food stamps, his apartment is larger then mine.

it bugs me, him getting a free ride, but then I'm told it's cheaper overall and frankly I don't want to trip over his drunk ass on the sidewalk, or anyone like him.
I don't want to live in a society full of sick decrepit uneducated scum everywhere even if I do get to live in a fenced in gated community, which I never will. that costs something and I think it's overall worth it. I mean I wouldn't say people have a RIGHT to liposuction, or perfect teeth...but somewhere there is a list of basic health and medical services that could be agreed upon as a basic benifit of being a taxpayer.

personally I like the idea of the medical industry becoming non profit, globally. I mean morally it seems wrong to profit on this. PBS is non profit and overall it's some of the highest quality programing there is.

[dippin]

Originally Posted by remy1492

And with
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]


What you're saying is that people who work, should pay for those who may not work, and if they don't ay they go to jail and lose big time?

I have a right not to go to jail just as much.

At what point is EVERYTHING a human right at the cost to other humans?

Which bill has those sections? Because neither the bill voted by the house nor the amendments included through reconciliation have those section numbers. In fact, there isn't a single mention of the word "felony" on the bill.

[ottopilot]

Originally Posted by remy1492

And with
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]


What you're saying is that people who work, should pay for those who may not work, and if they don't ay they go to jail and lose big time?

I have a right not to go to jail just as much.

At what point is EVERYTHING a human right at the cost to other humans?

Sorry remy1492, but it looks like these sections come from the US Tax Code regarding non-filing of tax returns. It sucks still the same...

However, this might brighten the mood...

[SecretMethod70]

Amazing how the Democrats can take something that is decidedly a conservative idea, and yet still nothing but complaints.

The GOP's Dirty Health-Care Secret - The Daily Beast

The GOP's Dirty Health-Care Secret

Republicans are screaming that Obamacare’s mandates are a “stunning assault on liberty,” as one put it. That’s ironic, since Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, and Bill Frist all embraced the idea.

The new mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance is “the most egregious, unconstitutional legislation that we can remember,” said South Carolina Republican Attorney General Henry McMaster. He is among more than a dozen state attorneys general who have filed a lawsuit asking the courts to declare the mandate unconstitutional because it is “an unprecedented encroachment” on the rights of both individuals and the states by the federal government. The political scrum that’s erupted over the mandate plan is deeply ironic—given that the idea has been warmly embraced by elements of the right since at least the early 1970s.

Far from the “stunning assault on liberty” decried by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the individual mandate is partially traceable to conservative embrace of an anti-Medicare, pro-free-market health-reform agenda. President Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget Director Caspar Weinberger believed that providing insurance to all Americans was a worthy goal, for instance. At the same time, he opposed reforms that would expand a government-run health-care system. So, as Daily Beast contributor Adam Clymer recounts in his fine biography of Sen. Ted Kennedy, Weinberger proposed a “solution” that would put the burden on employers “by requiring them to insure their workers.” This was an “employer mandate,” and it appealed to Weinberger among others because it ensured that health care in America would remain in the hands of the private sector, not fall under control of Washington.

While Nixon-era efforts to enact universal coverage ultimately faltered, the mandate concept didn't die. Instead, the idea that individuals should be required to buy insurance in the private marketplace gained intellectual momentum and attracted its share of political defenders during debates over Bill Clinton's proposals in the early 1990s.

Conservatives were drawn to individual mandates for two related reasons. First, they would strengthen rather than undermine the private insurance marketplace. Second, they would provide a constructive laissez-faire alternative to the liberal single-payer approach to achieving the goal of national health insurance.

It was conservative because it was a responsible idea friendly to the health-care marketplace—and embraced personal responsibility as a virtue. Author David Frum pointed out in his 1996 essay collection What’s Right: The New Conservative Majority and the Remaking of America that the individual mandate was among three major conservative reform ideas circulating at the time.

Endorsed by Stuart Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation and conservative economists such as Milton Friedman and Wharton’s Mark Pauly, individual mandates as an idea were at least partially generated by pro-free-enterprise intellectuals. “Heritage figured that since everyone in the country was getting some form of health coverage anyway, everyone ought to buy it,” explained Frum. “But unlike most liberal schemes, the Heritage plan imposed the obligation to buy insurance, but on individuals rather than employers.”

During the early '90s debate, the individual mandate and Heritage plan generally even came to “[look] like a daring free-market reform.” More than just a dust-gathering think tank idea, the individual mandate won plaudits from some prominent Republican elected leaders. In late 1993, Senate Leader Bob Dole cosponsored legislation with John Chafee that would have required individuals to buy health insurance. More recently, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist praised individual mandates as conservative and welcome steps toward health reform.

Not all conservatives have been enamored of the idea, of course. Libertarians “disliked ordering people to buy insurance,” said Frum; even Butler walked away from his plan in the end. (Republicans, like Democrats, have had their own disputes over the smartest, most principled approach to reforming health care and achieving universal coverage.)

Still, the bombastic rhetoric characterizing mandates as the end of liberty and the lawsuit filed by the attorneys general have a hypocritical, hyperbolic cast about them. Individual mandates have historically been regarded, at times, as a conservative agenda—one that would deliver on the promise of universal coverage while strengthening the private health-insurance system. It’s no small irony that instead of celebrating the triumph of their market-based approach to reforming health care, some conservatives in 2010 are denouncing the plan as the end of America as we know it.

Matthew Dallek teaches history and politics at the University of California’s Washington Center. He is the author of The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan's First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics.

[Charlatan]

Perhaps this is just another example of how far right the Republicans have shifted... more to the point... if the Democrats are adopting Republican policy it shows how far political discourse in the US has shifted to the right.

[ottopilot]

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Amazing how the Democrats can take something that is decidedly a conservative idea, and yet still nothing but complaints.

The GOP's Dirty Health-Care Secret - The Daily Beast

Even with its bias, the piece makes some valid distinctions regarding hypocrisies when crying foul. While the tone of the article is working the Rep vs Dem angle, it would be more accurate to frame this as a conservative vs progressive perspective.

The minority party always plays victim with grand righteous indignation. The party in power should rightfully claim victory. But there is an unusual level of fear-mongering this time. It's nothing we haven't seen similarly before. I predict there will be some significant wrestling for control of the parties... i.e. you're with us or against us. For good or bad, party identities will become more unified.

The struggle within the Democratic Party (as a super majority) to easily pass universal care most likely reflects the friction between their own groups of conservatives, liberals, and the progressives. The same sort of struggle is occurring within the Republican Party. The many fast growing independent movements (mostly conservative or libertarian) are a bi-product of their dissatisfaction with the traditional party structures. The lack of unity within the major parties is likely from their internal progressive vs conservative power struggle.

Progressives do exist in the Republican Party. I don't say this to demonize the progressive movement (like Glenn Beck). They go back as far as (at least) Teddy Roosevelt up to guys like Bush 1 and 2, Bob Dole, Bill Frist, and John McCain. They are not conservatives by any real measure, so they would most likely support similar causes (like Democratic progressives) when fronted by their parties. Regardless of outcome, the progressives are co opting the strength of the party brand. The traditional party persona (or brand) is fading as a reliable identity tool. Because the people sense a lack of message, this will be an internal focus for both parties.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Perhaps this is just another example of how far right the Republicans have shifted... more to the point... if the Democrats are adopting Republican policy it shows how far political discourse in the US has shifted to the right.

The U.S. is almost devoid of left politics. This is why you see this kind of thing happen: taking an idea such as universal health care and turning it into a mandatory insurance program. If that's not taking an idea rooted in social democracy and corrupting it into something digestible to entrenched neoliberals, I don't know what is.

The bill that was passed is decidedly influenced by conservatism.