Health care reform passed by the House

[TheStorm]

BBC NEWS
US House passes key health vote

The US House of Representatives has narrowly voted to pass a landmark healthcare reform bill at the heart of President Barack Obama's agenda.

The bill passed by 219 votes to 212, with no Republican backing, after hours of fierce argument and debate.

It extends coverage to 32 million more Americans, and marks the biggest change to the US healthcare system in decades.

The Republicans say the measures are unaffordable and represent a government takeover of the health industry.

Lawmakers held two votes into the late hours of Sunday - the first on procedural issues, and the second to pass a Senate version of a health reform bill.

Mr Obama is expected to sign the legislation into law shortly.

Long road
ANALYSIS
Mark Mardell, BBC News, Washington Emotions have been running high at times with Republicans warning of government tyranny, a European-style "nanny state" and an end to freedom. Equally emotional speeches from the other side talked about "healing America". But the real work was going on behind the scenes to secure the last necessary votes. Negotiations had been going on for several days with Bart Stupak, who leads anti-abortion Democrats. He won an executive order to be signed by the president once the vote has taken place.

In a last-minute move designed to win the support of a bloc of anti-abortion lawmakers, Mr Obama earlier on Sunday announced plans to issue an executive order assuring that healthcare reform will not change the restrictions barring federal money for abortion.

The House must now vote on a package of reconciliation "fixes" sought by some Democrats to the legislation.

If the House approves the package of changes to the Senate bill, the Senate would take it up next week using a procedure known as reconciliation.

That would allow budget provisions to be approved with 51 votes - rather than the 60 needed to overcome blocking tactics.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the final version of the Democrats' healthcare plan will cut the federal deficit by $138bn (£92bn) over 10 years.

The non-partisan body said the proposed legislation would cost about $940bn (£626bn) over a decade.

The reforms will increase insurance coverage through tax credits for the middle class and expansion of the Medicaid programme for the poor.

They represent the biggest change in the US healthcare system since the creation in the 1960s of Medicare, the government-run scheme for Americans aged 65 or over.

Read the terms and conditions
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/8579322.stm

Published: 2010/03/22 02:48:52 GMT

© BBC MMX

Print Sponsor

[Wimbly]

Pelosi just claimed the government taking over health care grants people more liberty. I don't see how that could possibly be the case. Government having control over your body and unfair advantage over private business makes us more free?

[FlintHillBilly]

Pelosi just claimed the government taking over health care grants people more liberty. I don't see how that could possibly be the case. Government having control over your body and unfair advantage over private business makes us more free?

Shes an idiot. Youd be surprised how many people would believe anything she or they say.

RIP USA.

[Ordie]

Great news!!!!

It was long overdue.

[plato]

Shes an idiot. Youd be surprised how many people would believe anything she or they say.

RIP USA.

An idiot who helped to pass a bill you oppose.

[2495]

Great news!!!!

It was long overdue.


How is forcing people to do some thing against their will great news? maybe if you're a facist or communist maybe, but a decent human being would stand four square against this.

[GeneralDisarray]

Bad news :(

[BloodyTalon]

Sweet! I can't wait to have to pay for **** I don't need! Thanks Democrats! :roll:

[Dispatcher]

Congratualations USA.

[Wimbly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp069Y_P-9M


An idiot who helped to pass a bill you oppose.


Not just him, but a majority of Americans.

[ronnieraygun]

Great news!!!!

It was long overdue.

Everyone has to buy insurance or be fined by the government. Great news.

[plato]

How is forcing people to do some thing against their will great news? maybe if you're a facist or communist maybe, but a decent human being would stand four square against this.

It is a small step forward. Not a good bill at all, but in the right direction. Americans cannot afford to pay 40% more than other developed nations on health care. This bill may or may NOT reduce our health care cost, but it is a good start.

[plato]

Everyone has to buy insurance or be fined by the government. Great news.

don't know where u live, but we already do get fined here for not having car insurance. old news

[Hollis]

Health care is a issue. I would rather see the money go to education. A educated people can build a better life. A entitlement class, just sets on their butts and wait for the next check.

[Dispatcher]

How is forcing people to do some thing against their will great news? maybe if you're a facist or communist maybe, but a decent human being would stand four square against this.

What a load of bullcrap.

Any country in the world does things against the will of their citizens. Dont call anyone that dis-agrees with you a fascist or a communist and an un-decent human. Its a weak way of arguing, not to mention rude as hell.

[Hollis]

don't know where u live, but we already do get fined here for not having car insurance. old news


You don't have to have a car, but you got to have yourself.

[ronnieraygun]

don't know where u live, but we already do get fined here for not having car insurance. old news

No, it's not "old news" and if anyone understood this they would be dead-set against it. This is health insurance, not driving a car which is by no means obligatory.

[Geezah]

It is a small step forward. Not a good bill at all, but in the right direction. Americans cannot afford to pay 40% more than other developed nations on health care. This bill may or may NOT reduce our health care cost, but it is a good start.

Why the right direction?

I prefer to only pay for the treatment myself and my family recieve, why the hell would I want to pay anymore than that?

The plus side is, we get to pay taxes for something that doesn't even kick in for the next 4yrs........fcukin LibTards......

[Geezah]

Congratualations USA.

For what exactly?

[plato]

No, it's not "old news" and if anyone understood this they would be dead-set against it. This is health insurance, not driving a car which is by no means obligatory.

Isn't it supposed to be the opposite way? How is driving a car more important than one's health? Why is car insurance obligatory? But, not health insurance?

[Dispatcher]

For what exactly?

Im not even gonna try and explain it. If you resort to calling people who think this is a good thing "fvcking Liberal Retards".... Like 2495, its weak arguing.

[Wimbly]

It is a small step forward. Not a good bill at all, but in the right direction..

Ignoring the American people and setting a formally self determined nation on a path to perpetual dependency on government is "the right direction"? Maybe in your country, but not here. We didn't get to where we are by being like your country.

[plato]

Why the right direction?

I prefer to only pay for the treatment myself and my family recieve, why the hell would I want to pay anymore than that?

The plus side is, we get to pay taxes for something that doesn't even kick in for the next 4yrs........fcukin LibTards......

It is forcing the "other" side to come up with a better solution, and look for faults of this "Obamacare". Much better than simply saying our health care system is the best in the world, therefore no need for reform.

[plato]

Ignoring the American people and setting a formally self determined nation on a path to perpetual dependency on government is "the right direction"? Maybe in your country, but not here. We didn't get to where we are by being like your country.

lol! that is all i have to say about it

[Wimbly]

lol! that is all i have to say about it

I assumed you were from outside the US, from previous comments. If not I apologize, but everything else I said still stands.


Much better than simply saying our health care system is the best in the world, therefore no need for reform.

Who is saying that?

[Hollis]

Look at the vote. It was not clear cut, it was very close. That in itself should say something is wrong. A clear majority is good vote. When it is very close, there is something wrong. Either they need to re-write it, do a better job selling it/explaining it to the people, or ??

[plato]

I assumed you were from outside the US, from previous comments. If not I apologize, but everything else I said still stands.



Who is saying that?

I am sure you know someone who is saying or have said that. I don't need to point out the obvious to you.

[Cabalabro]

So... You guys are all communists now.. Well hello comrades! :D

[Geezah]

Im not even gonna try and explain it.

Exactly, there is nothing to congratulate us for.



If you resort to calling people who think this is a good thing "fvcking Liberal Retards".... Like 2495, its weak arguing.

Weak or not, they are LibTards, they kept on going on about good for the people when the majority of the people wanted nothing to do with Socialised Medicine.

[Wimbly]

The jack offs on MSNBC are already discussing ways to "get" Americans to change their "lifestyle habits"......


I am sure you know someone who is saying or have said that. I don't need to point out the obvious to you.

Other than lap dogs in the MSM, I don't know of any Republican saying there should be no reform. Being against government take overs of our bodies doesn't equate to being against reform.

[Geezah]

It is forcing the "other" side to come up with a better solution, and look for faults of this "Obamacare".

Either you don't live here or you prefer to ignore what has been going on. The Right offered solutions but were constantly shut out, that;s why they let the Libs take this one alone........



Much better than simply saying our health care system is the best in the world, therefore no need for reform.

I had no issues with the way it is/was, I actually(as I have mentioned manys times here) prefer it to the NHS.

[ronnieraygun]

Isn't it supposed to be the opposite way? How is driving a car more important than one's health? Why is car insurance obligatory? But, not health insurance?

I don't know. I don't care about car insurance. That's a scam where I'm paying for other irresponsible people around me according to some bizarre secret system invented by actuaries no one knows yet I'm required to pay into it. Wait, that sounds like this plan...

Does requiring everyone to have health insurance fix the problem? No, because part of the problem in the first place is that people have to ****er with insurance companies to get health care. Let's fix the problem by hooking everyone up to the US of Insurance Companies. Sure.

Can we afford it? Probably not.

Will it end up like education and unfunded mandates where local/state entities are to told what to do by the feds and not given any money to do it? Probably.

Is this a huge incursion of the federal government into states rights? Probably.

I volunteer at the Salvation Army - when I told those folks that the fine print of the plan was to require you buy health insurance and get fined if you don't, a lot of people thought differently of it. I'm confident the amount of money people would have to pay for one of these plans will be steep and that the plans themselves would be worthless as far as coverage and ease of use.

[Dispatcher]

Exactly, there is nothing to congratulate us for.



Weak or not, they are LibTards, they kept on going on about good for the people when the majority of the people wanted nothing to do with Socialised Medicine.


The majority is what the votes in the house display, no? Or are you saying that the chosen representatives didnt convey the wishes of their constituents? Which is an odd thing. Being a democracy and all.

[Fat Lazy American]

Look at the vote. It was not clear cut, it was very close. That in itself should say something is wrong. A clear majority is good vote. When it is very close, there is something wrong.

I thought there was something wrong with the Bush presidency, too!

This health care bill looks pretty decent to me. Frankly, in terms of policy, Hillarycare was probably better. But a bird in the hand ...

[California Joe]

Look at the vote. It was not clear cut, it was very close. That in itself should say something is wrong. A clear majority is good vote. When it is very close, there is something wrong. Either they need to re-write it, do a better job selling it/explaining it to the people, or ??

They twisted arms to get the votes, and for various other reasons, the opposition also twisted arms to try and stop it. It's all so tawdry and I guarantee you the insurers are still smiling. And frankly all of this hand wringing about "ignoring the will of the people" is about as pertinent as "ignoring your 4 year old that wants to eat ice cream for every meal". The people are responding to misinformation. On both sides. This is not a panacea for all of the ills of society, nor is it armageddon and Joseph Stalin in leather chaps.

[Geezah]

The majority is what the votes in the house display, no? Or are you saying that the chosen representatives didnt convey the wishes of their constituents? Which is an odd thing. Being a democracy and all.

YOu don't live here do you, because it shows.

The majority of the people did not want Socialised Medicine which was conveyed by all the people up in arms over it.
Why do you think they had a vote on a Sunday before Easter recess, they do not want the Dems to get home and get an earful from those that voted them into their positions. Anyway, we will see how much the people want this crap come November........just like the AWB....

[FlintHillBilly]

So. If im a College student, poor, and struggling to even pay for college and i cant afford health insurance.. do they fine me or throw me in jail?

I see health care reform (if it was REFORM) a good thing, but the way they did it, the crap they added to it and the things in it is just crap. They could have gone about it differently in my opinion.

Where was the transperancy?

[seraosha]

Dr. Peter Venkman: This country is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Fixed it, seems apropos.

[LineDoggie]

Everyone has to buy insurance or be fined by the government. Great news.Or go to FEMA debtors camps......

[Hollis]

They twisted arms to get the votes, and for various other reasons, the opposition also twisted arms to try and stop it. It's all so tawdry and I guarantee you the insurers are still smiling. And frankly all of this hand wringing about "ignoring the will of the people" is about as pertinent as "ignoring your 4 year old that wants to eat ice cream for every meal". The people are responding to misinformation. On both sides. This is not a panacea for all of the ills of society, nor is it armageddon and Joseph Stalin in leather chaps.


No kidding, I don't think the fear mongers on either side are close. Health care has been a issue for long time. Maybe this is a move in the right direction. Hopefully if there are errors they will fix them.

[Hollis]

I thought there was something wrong with the Bush presidency, too!

This health care bill looks pretty decent to me. Frankly, in terms of policy, Hillarycare was probably better. But a bird in the hand ...


On candidates, it just shows they are close. On a bill/law, it shows something needs to be done.

[ronnieraygun]

It's all so tawdry and I guarantee you the insurers are still smiling.

I don't like sucking your **** on an internet forum but I just wanted to repost this so everyone understands. You know damn well somebody's getting paid on this deal and it has **** all to do with "health care" or "reform" in the FDR sense of the word.

[LineDoggie]

The Dems just Handed the GOP and the Tea Party/Baggers/Indy's a GOLD MINE for November, Mark my words.

Once people realize the cost of this and what its going to do, the Buyers remorse will set in.

[Skutatos]

And America continues it's decent into mediocrity. Democrats just bought themselves future votes though, that should make them happy. Now if only they can get that bill passed that will allow felons the right to vote once more, and give amnesty to illegal immigrants, then they are set forever.

[ronnieraygun]

Or go to FEMA debtors camps......
I trust you're being funny, but that's really what this was about, like the "Massachusetts model" or what have you.

Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016. The plan includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

[Skutatos]

The Dems just Handed the GOP and the Tea Party/Baggers/Indy's a GOLD MINE for November, Mark my words.

Once people realize the cost of this and what its going to do, the Buyers remorse will set in.

And jack **** will be done about it. What the hell is the GOP going to do?

[Hollis]

I don't like sucking your **** on an internet forum but I just wanted to repost this so everyone understands. You know damn well somebody's getting paid on this deal and it has **** all to do with "health care" or "reform" in the FDR sense of the word.


Like the bail out, if they gave that money to the people, the economy would be rip roaring right now.

[plato]

Either you don't live here or you prefer to ignore what has been going on. The Right offered solutions but were constantly shut out, that;s why they let the Libs take this one alone........



I had no issues with the way it is/was, I actually(as I have mentioned manys times here) prefer it to the NHS.


Sure, then it is time for the right to use the "failure" of "Obamacare" to win back the house or senate, and offer even better solutions. I am sure this will give you more opportunities in the future to attack the Dems. You should be happy!

[Geezah]

Sure, then it is time for the right to use the "failure" of "Obamacare" to win back the house or senate, and offer even better solutions. I am sure this will give you more opportunities in the future to attack the Dems. You should be happy!

Are you kidding.

We get to pay for this sh!te for 4yrs before it even kicks in, and after 4yrs, just how will they be able to revisit the Obamacare to get the Dems out of the House and Senate this November?

[plato]

The jack offs on MSNBC are already discussing ways to "get" Americans to change their "lifestyle habits"......



Other than lap dogs in the MSM, I don't know of any Republican saying there should be no reform. Being against government take overs of our bodies doesn't equate to being against reform.

Do you know any republicans saying that American health care system is best in the world? How do u reform with that kind of mentality?

[sgt_G]

me personally think it's time for a third party to take over

[California Joe]

The Dems just Handed the GOP and the Tea Party/Baggers/Indy's a GOLD MINE for November, Mark my words.

Once people realize the cost of this and what its going to do, the Buyers remorse will set in.

I agree with you but it still won't make it right. F*cking people screaming about socialism while they're on medicare and collecting social security is bizarre at best.

We pay insurance companies exhorbitant amounts of money and currently they can f*ck you anytime they please. We pay them. They control us. They take our money and buy Congressmen. Businesses can't afford to furnish their workers with health insurance and survive. Individuals go bankrupt from medical bills, by the thousands. All the time. And the answer is? A 2000 page clusterf*ck that allows for nothing more than cherrypicked soundbites to win the next election while the effects can't possibly be felt for 10 years.

[IMTT]

CHANGE BABY CHANGE! The sheep have spoken, you fvcking asked for it you idiots you got it. This is absolutely amazing that the American people have elected these morons and stood by while they take away our way of life. The domestic enemies of our republic are now in control. It should even get more fun now...

[Kit]

I don't support the bill at all, but a small part of me is happy that it passed. It just breaks the mundane and I'm interested to see what happens. Kinda like a wreck at a NASCAR race.

The US is still going to be here tomorrow and after. Just settle down.

[Dispatcher]

No kidding, I don't think the fear mongers on either side are close. Health care has been a issue for long time. Maybe this is a move in the right direction. Hopefully if there are errors they will fix them.


Live and learn, adapt. Thats what made/makes the US a great nation. Not the "OMG The communists are in control of aspirin now!" attitude that some here have.

If this bill sucks, fix it or kill it first thing in the coming elections.

[wildcat]

I agree with you but it still won't make it right. F*cking people screaming about socialism while they're on medicare and collecting social security is bizarre at best.

We pay insurance companies exhorbitant amounts of money and currently they can f*ck you anytime they please. We pay them. They control us. They take our money and buy Congressmen. Businesses can't afford to furnish their workers with health insurance and survive. Individuals go bankrupt from medical bills, by the thousands. All the time. And the answer is? A 2000 page clusterf*ck that allows for nothing more than cherrypicked soundbites to win the next election while the effects can't possibly be felt for 10 years.

basically that sums up what I feel, I still feel the people lost tonight, they got till 2014 to now fix the bill they just passed.

[plato]

Are you kidding.

We get to pay for this sh!te for 4yrs before it even kicks in, and after 4yrs, just how will they be able to revisit the Obamacare to get the Dems out of the House and Senate this November?

I don't know. That is something you or the "other" side have to figure out. I see this as good starting point for a long struggle to reshape our health care system. We do NOT have a capacity problem. We have enough money, doctors, and nurses. We have major problems managing our resources. The bottom line is we pay more for less, and this cannot continue. We either come up with something uniquely American and is working, or "copy" what all other developed nations are doing.

[CG51]

me personally think it's time for a third party to take over

I would support Anarchy.

[Hollis]

If this bill sucks, fix it or kill it first thing in the coming elections.


Precisely...........

[Geezah]

I don't know. That is something you or the "other" side have to figure out. I see this as good starting point for a long struggle to reshape our health care system.

This was not the way, making people pay for treatment they do not recieve.



We do NOT have a capacity problem. We have enough money, doctors, and nurses.

Enough at the moment under the current system, how long do you think that will last. I love the fact I could pick and choose which Doctor I went to for knee surgery, I could have my pcik of the best of the best. Why the hell would these people want to get into medical care now if they cannot make money, they may as well put their skills to something else.



We have major problems managing our resources. The bottom line is we pay more for less, and this cannot continue. We either come up with something uniquely American and is working, or "copy" what all other developed nations are doing.

No we do not, we pay for the service we get, you soon will be paying more for less though......

[usa320]

The majority of americans oppose the bill because it doesnt serve them... THe elderly who are currently on medicare will see cuts. College students who have no coverage because they are too old to be covered by their parents but to broke to afford their own will see no coverage. Working families wont see any decrease in medical costs. The worst thing is doctors are going to see less money. less money means it takes more years to pay off med school. more years to pay off med school means less doctors. Your gonna be waiting 3 months to see a dentist.

THe only people who truly will see a benefit come from this plan are 1) the senators who are now rejoicing that the pork they burried in it is passed. and 2) the class of people that feel they are entitled to everything even though they take no initiative to seek an education or employment.


If they really wanted to reform healthcare, how about offering cheapy basic coverage to working college students who currently have no coverage. how about putting a limit on how long the unemployed can collect medicaid... Either find a job or at least try to, or stop collecting. How about allowing employees to be more selective about the coverage they are buying. i know im paying for alot of crap i dont need (orthdontics? Drug Counseling? etc... wtf i need hospital visits and prescriptions thats it). How about looking into the business practices of the insurers, and finding ways to improve the way healthcare operates (for starters, get rid of all the paper. hospitals are the only place still using paper records). Making improvements at the hospital and to the insurance providers would have done more to lessen the costs of healthcare than completely changing the way americans purchase and maintain insurance.

[I can't think of a name]

All this bill will do is decrease the quality of my life for the benefit of welfare people I went to high school with.

[Dominique]

Pelosi just claimed the government taking over health care grants people more liberty. I don't see how that could possibly be the case. Government having control over your body and unfair advantage over private business makes us more free?

While Pelosi is a self serving liar, how does the gvernment now have "control over your body"?

[Blue387]

I'm amazed. Congress passed something!

If government can control bodies, can I call dibs on Scarlett Johansson as a tax payer?

Coming up: right-wingers whining about socialism!

[Panchito12]

This bill is just a bunch of smoke & mirrors to hide the fact that it is just a tax increase masquarading as an entitlement program to benefit the usual suspects. +275million Americans already have good health care insurance. But the usual suspects just got another incentive to remain at the bottom of the heap.

Just wait till the January change in Congress after the Nov election. Barry won't be able to get the funding for this boondoggle.

On another note, the Democrats finally broke their alliance with the abortion nazis.

[PhillyMobster]

Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016. The plan includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

I REALLY want to see what happens when the Suits show up at people's homes to collect. This is seriously ridiculous. I mean, basically you have to pay for the right to live. It's almost more offensive than the 'Estate Tax'. "Hey sorry your Dad died, here's a flower, now we get a percentage of your inheritance." I wouldn't give a crap about reasonable Gov't taxation, but things like this are unbelievable to me. But what's worse is just how ignorant most people are on this topic.

[FlintHillBilly]

I'm amazed. Congress passed something!

If government can control bodies, can I call dibs on Scarlett Johansson as a tax payer?

Coming up: right-wingers whining about socialism!

lol..

USA320 you hit it on the spot with the college students.... Now i will not be able to finish my PHD studies and have to resort to working at Mcdonalds. Way to brain drain us college students. No im not working on a PHD, but i would have liked to see something in it for college students.. do they not realize that sh!t is expensive, along with other bills, and now INSURANCe?! Throw me in jail i guess cause theres no way I want to, or can pay for insurance if its going to substitute me paying for college or studying.

[sepheronx]

A question to the americans in this thread.

Before all of this debacle, what exactly was your medical system like? I am aware that the hospitals had lots of money and better equipment. But how where payments done? Was it through the average person? Was it through a corporation? How did it go? If it was through an insurance agency, how did they treat you? Where there any "fine prints" that would undermine others in getting insurance (or being covered when something happens)?

I am wondering, as it confuses me to the utmost that many of you hate a system where you will be taken care of (when injured, sick, etc) when you are a tax payer. I mean, my taxes are pretty high (out of the 38K I make per year, I make around 33K after income tax). All I know is, I make enough to pay rent, pay bills, buy food, pay auto insurance, and pay for goods. Let me just say, that when I get sick, I know I am taken care of (last year, I made 42K, and it feels good man).

[California Joe]

Is there really some sort of addendum in there that says while you're a college student you have to buy insurance? Cause they don't even make you pay back federal student loans till after you graduate. Or is that just me using common sense.

[CG51]

$695 annual is right at $58 per month. That is how much I pay for full coverage now.

[skyeye]

“Everybody” is not required to buy insurance. Those in the Veterans Administration and military are exempt. As are those below some yet to be determined income level. I would assume all federal and state employees are exempt as they already have government sponsored coverage, and of course the snakes in the Congress exempted themselves.

The provisions for covering illegals and accepting pre-existing conditions should ensure a tsunami of more illegals to truly overwhelm the medical system.

So it’s only those independent, hard working, self-reliant, prudent folks who will have to pick up the bill and be fvcked for their efforts.

[Jobu]

Live and learn, adapt. Thats what made/makes the US a great nation. Not the "OMG The communists are in control of aspirin now!" attitude that some here have.

If this bill sucks, fix it or kill it first thing in the coming elections.

It's not that easy. This bill creates at least 100 new government agencies and even if the GOP should take back Congress in November we still have that moron in the White House.

Undoing this mess will be extremely difficult and we're going to end up with several trillion dollars in new entitlement costs on our shoulders on top of the $13 trillion we already cannot pay. This country is drowning in deep financial **** and this President and Congress just piled up another few feet.

It would take a Republican President and Congress in 2013 to overturn this monstrosity in any significant way.

[sepheronx]

“Everybody” is not required to buy insurance. Those in the Veterans Administration and military are exempt. As are those below some yet to be determined income level. I would assume all federal and state employees are exempt as they already have government sponsored coverage, and of course the snakes in the Congress exempted themselves.

The provisions for covering illegals and accepting pre-existing conditions should ensure a tsunami of more illegals to truly overwhelm the medical system.

So it’s only those independent, hard working, self-reliant, prudent folks who will have to pick up the bill and be fvcked for their efforts.

Thank you, you answered my question.

[FlintHillBilly]

Is there really some sort of addendum in there that says while you're a college student you have to buy insurance? Cause they don't even make you pay back federal student loans till after you graduate. Or is that just me using common sense.

No idea, myself and many others who even proposed the bill probably have not read the thing. Why have they not said anything about college students? If there is something in there and i have not heard of it please let me know. Not all the student loans are payed back after college. I am paying right now while in college. Basically just paying the interest. I do not qualify for PELL grants (maybe i can this time because im not claimed anymore on my parents taxes, but even when i was i didnt qualify). Im just looking at the way it has been presented to us. You HAVE to pay for insurance or you are fined, or go to jail. Im not sure what qualifies someone as a POORER family to avoid penalties and jail. As a college student paying his own way through college I would hope that I could get on some government insurance since they passed it. Otherwise ill have to pay out of pocket probably for something ill hardly use and that adds up..

Or like you said, maybe its common sense and I am missing something?

[LineDoggie]

Tsunami of Illegals, That's for sure.

Hey I wonder how much food costs will go up since the growers now have to provide medical for the Pickers?


Love that 5 buck Orange......

[Derbedeu]

Is there really some sort of addendum in there that says while you're a college student you have to buy insurance? Cause they don't even make you pay back federal student loans till after you graduate. Or is that just me using common sense.

When I was in college (not too long ago) I had the option of being under my own insurance, buying the college's insurance (much cheaper), or staying under my parents insurance.

This bill allows one to piggyback on your parents insurance until you're 26.

Personally, I believe this bill is a step in the right direction, and I am glad it passed.

[skyeye]

This bill allows one to piggyback on your parents insurance until you're 26. If they let you, or you’re not a complete leech. edit: nothing personal.

[Derbedeu]

If they let you, or you’re not a complete leech. edit: nothing personal.

None taken. :)

Just mentioning that it is one of the provisions of the bill. So if you are a college student who can't really afford your own independent insurance, but your parents have their own, you will be covered by theirs.

[Jobu]

None taken. :)

Just mentioning that it is one of the provisions of the bill. So if you are a college student who can't really afford your own independent insurance, but your parents have their own, you will be covered by theirs.

What do you think that's going to do to their premiums?

[Nano]

Well for sure the one group of people who are most happy about this bill are the medical insurance companies themselves. This bill and existing government regulations/requiremnets make innovative health insurance start ups all the more difficult to start and create price competition. If I was in the health insurance business I'd be for sure to be getting a huge orgasm/bonus from the the debacle(Pharma instant profit price cuts) leading up to this bill finishing up in multiple earth shattering orgasms/bonuses induced by all the money that is going to be rolling in. All in all a job well done for all the crooks in government and in the FIRE economy there has been nothing more Constitutionally breaching passed since "social insecurity".
Yeah for more taxes.:-(

[Albatross]

I own my own company and we are still in start up. Can't afford healthcare just yet. **** YOU GOVERNMENT. Thanks for the fine faggots.

[AlexMartin2]

I'm not sure why so many American MP.NET members so pissed about it.

You as taxpayers pay every year 600+ billion dollars to Pentagon and dont know how many for Foreign Affairs for:
1) Run two wars abroad with no clear results
2) Help countries such as Georgia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
3) 10 freaking aircraft carriers just to "project power abroad"
4) a few hundreds military bases abroad
5) money for corrupt NGO's to promote "democracy" in countries who doesn't want your help
and list go on...

And when someone propose 100 bln per year to help your nation be healthy, you dont like it? I find this very strange :)

[TraumaDoc]

The congressional budget office estimated the cost of this bill over 10 years at 920 Billion dollars. Then there is the cost of the companion bill which is necessary to satisfy the House for passing the Senate's bill, This is estimated at 300 Billion USD. Then there is the historic observation that nothing can be predicted for 10 years and that historically when congress predicts health costs multiplying the estimates by 3 gives a more realistic figure.

1. Medicaid patients will increase by 50% - this will increase the cost borne by the states by 50% at a time when many states are already in the red. California is already 20 Billion in the red and has one of the largest Medicaid rolls in the country.
2. Who is going to see them? Most doctors won't because the payment to doctors from Medicaid works out to about 60% of what it costs to see them.
3. Primary care doctors are the Basic line of care for most people but payment rates are set by medicare so that primary care doctors earn half or less than specialtists. Less than 10% of medical school graduates are now selecting primary care for their residency. More are retiring than are graduating.
4. Medicare fee schedule is the basic reference for physician payment; most private insurance plans are based on it. A private plan may pay at 120% of Medicare fees. Medicare pays at 100% but this is only about 80% of the cost of delivering the care by a doctor's office. Medicaid pays at around 80% of Medicare but this is set by the individual states and varies.
5. Congress established in 2002 a method of setting Medicare reimbursement rates that has each year proposed cuts in reimbursement rates to doctors. Each year congress has deferred it but not changed it. If it had gone into effect January 1, 2010 it would have cut payment rates by 21%. This has been delayed until October. To permanently fix it will cost 300 Billion USD. If it goes into effect I estimate that at least 10% of US doctors will retire. Understand that this will cut by 21% all Medicare and Medicaid payments and all insurance plans who have linked their rates to it. Most doctors practices will lose money at that pay rate.
6. The changes forced on the private insurance plans are long overdue but will cost the plans more and will result in increasing insurance rates. I heard that one major insurer in California has already proposed a 39% increase.
7. This so-called reform will add 30 million people to the rolls of insured and has forced changes on the insurance industry that will increase the cost of health insurance. It proposes to save money by 450 Billion dollars in unspecified cuts in Medicare spending over 10 years. I don't see any reform in this bill. I do see the potential for total control by the federal government in the future of medicine and a huge increase in the cost.

The next few years are going to be very interesting.

[Azatavrear]

What do you think that's going to do to their premiums?

It should be no change in extending the required minimum age to qualify for coverage from the parents medical insurance. It would be just like when they were covered before. Change in premiums will eventually come due to other factors. People who have insurance through their employers may not even see any change.

[Createdeemcee]

I'm not sure why so many American MP.NET members so pissed about it.

You as taxpayers pay every year 600+ billion dollars to Pentagon and dont know how many for Foreign Affairs for:
1) Run two wars abroad with no clear results
2) Help countries such as Georgia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
3) 10 freaking aircraft carriers just to "project power abroad"
4) a few hundreds military bases abroad
5) money for corrupt NGO's to promote "democracy" in countries who doesn't want your help
and list go on...

And when someone propose 100 bln per year to help your nation be healthy, you dont like it? I find this very strange :-)

Couldnt be any clearer!

[Nano]

I'm not sure why so many American MP.NET members so pissed about it.

You as taxpayers pay every year 600+ billion dollars to Pentagon and dont know how many for Foreign Affairs for:
1) Run two wars abroad with no clear results
2) Help countries such as Georgia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
3) 10 freaking aircraft carriers just to "project power abroad"
4) a few hundreds military bases abroad
5) money for corrupt NGO's to promote "democracy" in countries who doesn't want your help
and list go on...

And when someone propose 100 bln per year to help your nations healthy, you dont like it? I find this very strange :)
I'm not sure about the rest of the American tax payers on this board, but I'm not all too happy about that list either. Help who the healthy?The healthy and responsible don't need any help they'll pull through the hardest of things life throws at them. Its all the entitled slaves that enslave all the rest of us to pay for their care-free life that is my biggest problem with government being involved in anything other than in national defense and other free-rider services. Government has been the main reason for the rise in the cost of health insurance and medical costs. This really is just a tax increase since we already pay for medicare health insurance which everyone who pays in for it is not eligible for it.

[thecdn]

The congressional budget office estimated the cost of this bill over 10 years at 920 Billion dollars.

From - http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=508
"An estimate of the budgetary effects of the reconciliation proposal, in combination with the effects of H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as passed by the Senate. The combination of those two pieces of legislation would reduce federal deficits by an estimated $138 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

Also check out - http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e00982269188330120a7a46406970b-popup for a graphical representation of where the US stands on cost of health care vs life expectancy.

I like AlexMartin2's list; all the money in the world for wars and the war machine but none to help make life better for fellow citizens.

BTW there is no public option in this, all the insurance bought is still through private companies so the government is not taking control of anyone's bodies. The same insurance companies that deny you because of pre-existing conditions, tell you what doctors you can see, and deny your claims are still in charge.

[thecdn]

I'm not sure about the rest of the American tax payers on this board, but I'm not all too happy about that list either. Help who the healthy?The healthy and responsible don't need any help they'll pull through the hardest of things life throws at them.

The healthy and responsible and uninsured are going to pull through that devastating car or motorcycle accident? The healthy and responsible and uninsured are going to pull through when their child is diagnosed with leukemia? Ever notice that in no other country in the world do people go bankrupt because of medical expenses? I'll be sure to tell that uninsured construction worker who just had an industrial accident that he can pay for his own medical costs, while not working, and keep living that care-free life of his.

[IMTT]

Get on board, November is pay back you tricks. Liars, thieves and traitors TO THE REPUBLIC, hang them all. REVOLUTION NOW!

http://www.teapartyexpress.org/

[plato]

This was not the way, making people pay for treatment they do not recieve.



Enough at the moment under the current system, how long do you think that will last. I love the fact I could pick and choose which Doctor I went to for knee surgery, I could have my pcik of the best of the best. Why the hell would these people want to get into medical care now if they cannot make money, they may as well put their skills to something else.



No we do not, we pay for the service we get, you soon will be paying more for less though......

Please show me ONE example of a national health care system with no government involvement. On the other hand I can show you MANY examples of government involved health care system at work, and they cost much much less than our current system. People there just happened to live longer than Americans. Of course we all know that has nothing to do with their health care system, it is just our American life styles are worse.

[Jobu]

It should be no change in extending the required minimum age to qualify for coverage from the parents medical insurance. It would be just like when they were covered before. Change in premiums will eventually come due to other factors. People who have insurance through their employers may not even see any change.

I have a bridge to sell you.

[Nano]

The healthy and responsible and uninsured are going to pull through that devastating car or motorcycle accident? The healthy and responsible and uninsured are going to pull through when their child is diagnosed with leukemia? Ever notice that in no other country in the world do people go bankrupt because of medical expenses? I'll be sure to tell that uninsured construction worker who just had an industrial accident that he can pay for his own medical costs, while not working, and keep living that care-free life of his.
Yes they will if they survive the accident. People choose for themselves what their needs are. Bankruptcy is hardly world ending and it is the natural order of things at times. There is a slew of insurances that cover all that which you have noted already. Insurance in every category type would be best suited if government policy/regulations were conducive to choice rather than force tantamount to servitude for political and huge financial gain of a few. Given how the bill does little to nothing to promote personal choice/responsibility it will merely immediately increase taxes and eventually medical costs. Life is not care-free and the crooks/politicians continued insistence to make it so is going to end badly for everyone involved. Just wait a few decades when social security is due to fall under its own weight or see drastic cuts/tax increases for those it is supposed to "secure"

[madmonkey37]

lol..

USA320 you hit it on the spot with the college students.... Now i will not be able to finish my PHD studies and have to resort to working at Mcdonalds. Way to brain drain us college students. No im not working on a PHD, but i would have liked to see something in it for college students.. do they not realize that sh!t is expensive, along with other bills, and now INSURANCe?! Throw me in jail i guess cause theres no way I want to, or can pay for insurance if its going to substitute me paying for college or studying.

I don't know how it is at other colleges around the rest of the country, but to attend one of the University of California colleges, you are required to have comprehensive medical insurance, either from your parents or the university sponsored student health insurance program.

[GlassHarp]

Guessing that all part time, low skill workers at my place of employment will be looking for new jobs by the end of the month.

Smooth move congress. way to go.

If I am reading correctly what this bill requires, I will not be able to keep my current health plan. I thought Obama said we would be able to keep our current health insurance?

Considering going galt and moving to China.

:-(

[Flagg]

Another band-aid on the gangrene.

I love democracy, but we seriously, seriously suck at it.

Healthcare freebies are for countries that can afford them....and if we see a China Crash even Min's beneficiary of natural resource circumstances "Australia is the greatest at everything, ever" is going to get F'n smoked too.

The way I see it, the US is arguing over which new SUV to lease.....the Lexus or the Escalade......when it's house is going into foreclosure....and the foundation is crumbling.

The US is in SERIOUS economic trouble......the engines have flamed out and there's only so much forward momentum remaining to make a controlled crash........and it's being wasted on keeping the passengers comfortable for just a wee bit longer pretending everything is OK instead of actually keeping the passengers alive, making a rough descent and safely landing a bent bird.

If the US was running a trade and budget surplus, and could sustain it....I'd say go crazy.......but just because the nation lives in the flashest looking McMansion on the global block doesn't mean it has the cashflow to keep up appearances indefinitely.

Picking flowers with such poor situational awareness in the direct path of an out of control steamroller is lunacy.

[Glaz]

BTW there is no public option in this, all the insurance bought is still through private companies so the government is not taking control of anyone's bodies. The same insurance companies that deny you because of pre-existing conditions, tell you what doctors you can see, and deny your claims are still in charge.
Woohoo, that's a relief! And there I thought, it wuz the communists taking over.

[Scriptable]

What the hell is up with this picture on Rush Llimbaugh's site?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031910/content/01125109.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg

115188

Rush must be a little unhappy.

[Mackie]

Pelosi just claimed the government taking over health care grants people more liberty. I don't see how that could possibly be the case. Government having control over your body and unfair advantage over private business makes us more free?

Unlike some tabloids often praise, a lot of systems around the globe (including the swiss, a REAL conservative country) are a mix of private and governments elements. A lot of them provide a equal service cheaper.

[BlackWarder]

Great new USA.

I must admit, at first when the health care issue first came up I wasn't sure what all the fuss was about, I assumed that the US, being a superpower that it is has healthcare at least as good as I get here in my country, the little snooping that I did about the subject shocked me, I mean come on, inssurance companies revoking the insurance when an healthy person goes sick??? if a thing like that would have happend to me I would have gone Colombine on thier asses, but the thing that really shocked me was the figures 30 milion uninssured people, at first it didn't seemed so much but than it hit me that 30 mil is 5 time the population of Israel.

I don understand all the negativity on this boards, my Grandma broke her hip bone about a month ago, in the US it would have cost us an arm and leg to get the treatment that she is getting now I think that the only thing that we actually paid extra on was an ambulance ride back to thier house after she was discharged.

It's hard for me to picture a scenario where a child will not get treated only because his parents don't have good enough inssurance...



So. If im a College student, poor, and struggling to even pay for college and i cant afford health insurance.. do they fine me or throw me in jail?

I see health care reform (if it was REFORM) a good thing, but the way they did it, the crap they added to it and the things in it is just crap. They could have gone about it differently in my opinion.

Where was the transperancy?

from what I understand you are going to be automaticly insured until you are 26, students can also enjoy thier parents health care...


Warder

[shilka234]

In Spain they can not afford it and I tell you right away it is implanted since the 70's. It is the less growing country in EU (if Greece permit it)

[lbprnstars99]

**** obama and the socialist horse he rode in on, that ****ing bastard..

[xav]

Welcome to the western world (if what M. Moore said was true as in USA was the only western country without a social healthcare system)

[Holycrusader]

Its nice that finally USA join our western civilization!

[Jaeger07]

Its nice that finally USA join our western civilization!

x2

It very hard for most Europeans to grasp why even a few amreicans can be critical of this reform.

I still dont get what the fuzz is about...

Anyways congratz USA!

[IraGlacialis]

^^^^^
Difference of cultural structure, difference in economic status, difference in economic type, philosophies historically ingrained in the psyche, larger population, etc.

Health care is a issue. I would rather see the money go to education. A educated people can build a better life. A entitlement class, just sets on their butts and wait for the next check.
In complete agreement. Only problem is that investing in education is a long-term goal with a standing period till you see real results, as impacting as those results may be. People like immediate results, hence the most you will see is mere lip-service to education and no more.

[HellToupee]

Healthcare freebies are for countries that can afford them....and if we see a China Crash even Min's beneficiary of natural resource circumstances "Australia is the greatest at everything, ever" is going to get F'n smoked too.


Countries can more afford the healthcare freebies than the non freebie system of the US, its cheaper.

[msnger]

Great news!!!!

It was long overdue.

x2

12345789

[BlackFlag]

Welcome to the western world (if what M. Moore said was true as in USA was the only western country without a social healthcare system)


Its nice that finally USA join our western civilization!

Biggest Troll comments thus far in this thread.

Although, for a lot of Super-Liberals here in the US, I think this might be a reason they wanted the bill to pass. They think, "Europe has it, WE should have it! Otherwise we're a bunch of Rednecks. I sure don't want to be heckled when I go back packing in Europe after College, while trying to "find myself".

The US is not Europe, or Canada, or Australia, etc.

The main reason I am against this bill is because it eliminates choice. I know health care is a good, and important thing to have, but it should be a choice! Not a requirement. Eliminating choice is eliminating free will. Same goes with Abortion, Smoking, Helmet laws, etc. etc.

[Jaeger07]

Although, for a lot of Super-Liberals here in the US, I think this might be a reason they wanted the bill to pass. They think, "Europe has it, WE should have it! Otherwise we're a bunch of Rednecks. I sure don't want to be heckled when I go back packing in Europe after College, while trying to "find myself".

The US is not Europe, or Canada, or Australia, etc.


Ofcourse you do what fits you. But labeling this kind of reform as "Socialized Health-care" is still something exclusively American. In the rest of the world its just "health-care". The notion that any government-run institution or system would be a step towrds "socialism", communism or the likes is something that amazes most Europeans. And it gives me an impression of Americans as slightly disconnected with reality on this matter.

[mas-36]

Although, for a lot of Super-Liberals here in the US, I think this might be a reason they wanted the bill to pass. They think, "Europe has it, WE should have it! Otherwise we're a bunch of Rednecks. I sure don't want to be heckled when I go back packing in Europe after College, while trying to "find myself".

The US is not Europe, or Canada, or Australia, etc.



So you don't think it has anything to do with the fact that Americans pay more for health services and yet recieve less for their money? It may certainly be a difference of cultures and what they percieve as higher priorities. The quality of health services is not the issue, as some seem to believe, it's cost. If you break your arm you'll probably get the same quality health services in Holland or France or Germany as you would in the US, but it won't cost you the other arm. I speak from experience of having been a recipient of health service in both the EU and the US.

[Stonewall71]

x2

It very hard for most Europeans to grasp why even a few amreicans can be critical of this reform.

I still dont get what the fuzz is about...

Anyways congratz USA!


x3.................................

[BlackFlag]

Welcome to the western world (if what M. Moore said was true as in USA was the only western country without a social healthcare system)


Its nice that finally USA join our western civilization!


Ofcourse you do what fits you. But labeling this kind of reform as "Socialized Health-care" is still something exclusively American. In the rest of the world its just "health-care". The notion that any government-run institution or system would be a step towrds "socialism", communism or the likes is something that amazes most Europeans.

Many Nations in the, "Western World" are Welfare states, where in my opinion, many of the people believe their success comes from such welfare, (Nationalized health care, nationalization of certain industries, government regulation in the economy). Where in the US, many feel that the Federal government instituting these policies in the US will, or currently are contributing to our decline.

Personally, I'm in favor of some regulation. Corporations have no obligation to anyone but their shareholders, and the consequences of greed, and unethical operations are real, and ever present. However, when the Federal government decides one of these welfare programs mandatory, it leaves no option, other than breaking the law and not getting insurance.

[Sebkaem]

Ofcourse you do what fits you. But labeling this kind of reform as "Socialized Health-care" is still something exclusively American. In the rest of the world its just "health-care". The notion that any government-run institution or system would be a step towrds "socialism", communism or the likes is something that amazes most Europeans. And it gives me an impression of Americans as slightly disconnected with reality on this matter.

totally agree....cant understand the big deal with it. labelling it socialism is just an excuse because lots of people dont give a **** how lower class people struggle to afford a decent health care.

[BlackFlag]

So you don't think it has anything to do with the fact that Americans pay more for health services and yet recieve less for their money? It may certainly be a difference of cultures and what they percieve as higher priorities. The quality of health services is not the issue, as some seem to believe, it's cost. If you break your arm you'll probably get the same quality health services in Holland or France or Germany as you would in the US, but it won't cost you the other arm. I speak from experience of having been a recipient of health service in both the EU and the US.

I agree! One million times over, I agree. I' in favor of health care reform, and the Federal Government regulating costs on health care. What I am not in favor of, is a law that will force me to buy insurance. I think the government has no right over the life, and body of anyone.

[Scriptable]

What I am not in favor of, is a law that will force me to buy insurance. I think the government has no right over the life, and body of anyone.
What on Earth has that got to do with buying health insurance? Your not selling your soul.

[BlackFlag]

What on Earth has that got to do with buying health insurance? Your not selling your soul.

It's not really hard to understand. This law will make buying insurance mandatory. I am opposed to this, as I believe the government has no right to make me insure myself. It doesn't mean I'm opposed to obtaining insurance. It doesn't mean I don't think health care needs to be reformed into a more affordable institution. It means I am opposed to the government punishing me for simply walking around without being insured.

[KoTeMoRe]

^^^^^
Difference of cultural structure, difference in economic status, difference in economic type, philosophies historically ingrained in the psyche, larger population, etc.

In complete agreement. Only problem is that investing in education is a long-term goal with a standing period till you see real results, as impacting as those results may be. People like immediate results, hence the most you will see is mere lip-service to education and no more.


Investing in education is also a dead end. Look at it from the former Comm-Bloc perspective. If you invest massievely into education, you'll have "brain excedents" that would have to settle for a less lavish job. In order to cut this excedent you might want to channel education, put the money where you need the brain. The only issue with this is going to be that adjustment timeframe. How many will be left out of their league despite having a degree?

Again,High education leads to a certain entitlement feeling, you have to cope with that.

[Scriptable]

Again,High education leads to a certain entitlement feeling, you have to cope with that.
I thought it was the other way around. Look to places like Japan, for example, where the level of education is much higher than in the U.S., and there is far less of such feelings of entitlement.

[TraumaDoc]

totally agree....cant understand the big deal with it. labelling it socialism is just an excuse because lots of people dont give a **** how lower class people struggle to afford a decent health care.

Most of the lower classes were provided health care thru Medicaid, mothers and children at least. The disabled were provided for under Medicare-D. The largest group without insurance were small business owners and their employees.

[Azatavrear]

It's not really hard to understand. This law will make buying insurance mandatory. I am opposed to this, as I believe the government has no right to make me insure myself. It doesn't mean I'm opposed to obtaining insurance. It doesn't mean I don't think health care needs to be reformed into a more affordable institution. It means I am opposed to the government punishing me for simply walking around without being insured.

Most Americans will also strongly oppose to this and the lawmakers know it. This is why the bill is now going for revisions in the Senate and I think this might be one of the items that will be removed from the bill.

[Alex G]

While I don´t know what exactly is in this bill, I still think that US needed some kind of reform of health care. For us Europeans it´s very hard to understand, why you have so many people without insurance and why the ones who do have it have to pay more then we while getting same service as we do.

[KoTeMoRe]

I thought it was the other way around. Look to places like Japan, for example, where the level of education is much higher than in the U.S., and there is far less of such feelings of entitlement.

Hardly comparable to Europe. Try a shove down to some Law Degree holder's throat, that he'll have to kiss his courtroom goodbye and drive a bus for the rest of his life. You might want to take a "Hurtlocker" suit with you...

[Wimbly]

While I don´t know what exactly is in this bill

Nobody does, not even Obama.


I still think that US needed some kind of reform of health care.

So **** it, lets just pass anything no matter whats in it?


For us Europeans it´s very hard to understand

I have no doubt about that. You guys have been living in an entitlement nanny state for a very long time. You don't know what you lost, if you never had it. You live in a nation that is beholden to the government. Ours was supposed to be the opposite of that.

[SBL]

A pig in a poke. Thanks Congress.

[NineLine]

If I hear one more comparison to Europeans my head is going to explode.

[Wimbly]

"The American people voted for socialism" -Al Sharpton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqojWrtnieI

ObamaCare Opponents 'Probably Can't Spell Communism and Socialism' Says CNN's Roland Martin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUZMYp-GQIM

[XShipRider]

Don't think for a minute Republicans will "fix" this should they be handed major seat victories in November and in 2012. Regardless of the current rhetoric and vitriol being spewed, the final signed bill will NEVER be rescinded. Ever.

I predict the Republicans will win seats in November. From that point don't expect a whole lot of anything because once inside the beltway both parties act exactly the same - despicable.

[Citadel-SC]

EDIT Deleted

[Jobu]

Most of the lower classes were provided health care thru Medicaid, mothers and children at least. The disabled were provided for under Medicare-D. The largest group without insurance were small business owners and their employees.

And now those small business owners will be fined if they do not provide insurance for their employees.
What is more likely?

-small business buys mandatory insurance for all employees
-small business pays fines
-small business decides do go with fewer employees

???

[dava]

It is supposed to protect yourself from making stupid choices. And not having medical insurance is a stupid choice. I can know it because I was 24 when I was diagnosed with cancer. I just had reentered university after some years of being a grunt in the military. I was in top shape and thought nothing could happen to me.

If it is all about free choice, why don't you go chanting against the government because they do not allow you to take drugs or sign a slavery contract?

[Jobu]

If it is all about free choice, why don't you go chanting against the government because they do not allow you to take drugs or sign a slavery contract?

Because those are not comparable.

[Citadel-SC]

EDIT Deleted

[IMTT]

Your taxes won't go up, everyone will be happy, medical care for all, small bussiness will progress with profit, the Health care Czar is goign to make your life perfect in all ways, its perfect FOCUS lisen carefully to the voices or the beatings will continue. You can't disagree, the under class dead-beats depend on you for a better life so get back to work. Change, Change, Change; ZOMBIES repeat after me!

NOVEMBER BABY; As I predicted and their little socialist experment will be over then its pay back in a big way you pukes!

[MPNFL]

Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill

By CBS News Capitol Hill Producers Jill Jackson and John Nolen
Cost:


$940 billion over ten years.


Deficit:


Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. That is an updated CBO estimate. Their first preliminary estimate said it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Would reduce the deficit by $1.2 billion dollars in the second ten years.


Coverage:


Would expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

Health Insurance Exchanges:


The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level.
Separate exchanges would be created for small businesses to purchase coverage -- effective 2014.
Funding available to states to establish exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015.

Subsidies:


Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale.

Federal Poverty Level for family of four is $22,050

Paying for the Plan:


Medicare Payroll tax on investment income -- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).
Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan.
Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.

Medicare:


Closes the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" by 2020. Seniors who hit the donut hole by 2010 will receive a $250 rebate.
Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap will receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs. The bill also includes $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.

Medicaid:


Expands Medicaid to include 133 percent of federal poverty level which is $29,327 for a family of four.
Requires states to expand Medicaid to include childless adults starting in 2014.
Federal Government pays 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016.
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.

Insurance Reforms:


Six months after enactment, insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition.
Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions.
Insurance companies must allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans through age 26.

Abortion:


The bill segregates private insurance premium funds from taxpayer funds. Individuals would have to pay for abortion coverage by making two separate payments, private funds would have to be kept in a separate account from federal and taxpayer funds.
No health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage. States could pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering abortion coverage through the exchange.

**Separately, anti-abortion Democrats worked out language with the White House on an executive order that would state that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother. (Read more here) (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000845-503544.html)


Individual Mandate:


In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.

Employer Mandate:


Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.

Immigration:


Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

[xav]

At least, this will put a stop to US citizens crossing the border with Canada to get access to doctors/hospitals

/sarcasm

[IDF_TANKER]

Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill



What's about those unemployed?

[Glaz]

Most Americans will also strongly oppose to this and the lawmakers know it. This is why the bill is now going for revisions in the Senate and I think this might be one of the items that will be removed from the bill.
Tea party rallies can hardly be considered a numerical representative of "most Americans".


Because those are not comparable.
They aren't? You mean, say, marijuana prohibition is not an affront to personal freedom and free choice, while mandated health insurance is? Hide and seek time. Logic, where are you? *looks around*


Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill

By CBS News Capitol Hill Producers Jill Jackson and John Nolen
Cost:



$940 billion over ten years.



Deficit:



Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. That is an updated CBO estimate. Their first preliminary estimate said it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Would reduce the deficit by $1.2 billion dollars in the second ten years.



Coverage:



Would expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.


Health Insurance Exchanges:



The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level.
Separate exchanges would be created for small businesses to purchase coverage -- effective 2014.
Funding available to states to establish exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015.


Subsidies:



Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale.


Federal Poverty Level for family of four is $22,050

Paying for the Plan:



Medicare Payroll tax on investment income -- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).
Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan.
Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.


Medicare:



Closes the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" by 2020. Seniors who hit the donut hole by 2010 will receive a $250 rebate.
Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap will receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs. The bill also includes $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.


Medicaid:



Expands Medicaid to include 133 percent of federal poverty level which is $29,327 for a family of four.
Requires states to expand Medicaid to include childless adults starting in 2014.
Federal Government pays 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016.
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.


Insurance Reforms:



Six months after enactment, insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition.
Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions.
Insurance companies must allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans through age 26.


Abortion:



The bill segregates private insurance premium funds from taxpayer funds. Individuals would have to pay for abortion coverage by making two separate payments, private funds would have to be kept in a separate account from federal and taxpayer funds.
No health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage. States could pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering abortion coverage through the exchange.


**Separately, anti-abortion Democrats worked out language with the White House on an executive order that would state that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother. (Read more here) (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000845-503544.html)


Individual Mandate:



In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.


Employer Mandate:



Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.


Immigration:



Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

No mention of the FEMA camps for insurance derelicts? And, what about the death panels?
Clearly, this article left key details out, as is fitting of Liberal Mainstream Media™ to do.

[TraumaDoc]

Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill

By CBS News Capitol Hill Producers Jill Jackson and John Nolen
Cost:
$940 billion over ten years.
Deficit:

Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. That is an updated CBO estimate. Their first preliminary estimate said it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Would reduce the deficit by $1.2 billion dollars in the second ten years.
Individual Mandate:

In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.
Employer Mandate:
Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

The CBO estimate is "based on current assumptions": most of which are wishful thinking.

I hope that no adult believes that you can reduce the deficit by spending more money.

There is no employer mandate but a 2000.00 fine per employee if you don't provide insurance. Does this make sense anywhere outside of Washington,DC? Actually,with the cost of a policy running over 5000.00 per employee 2000.00 might look good. On the other hand, laying off your employees, closing your business and getting a job yourself might look even better.

[variable]

I don't like the idea of people not getting the best possible medical attention just because they're poor.

If this bill puts an end to it - great.

No more "John Q."-cases.

[Sakop]

Individual Mandate:





In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.
I think CBS left this out!

Under the reconciliation bill, individuals who don’t purchase insurance would be subject to a fine of $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016. Individuals may be subject to a charge equal to as much as 2.5 percent of their income in 2016, if the total is greater than the flat payment.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ake7tOWwUT6E


If you make over $28,000 per year you have to pay for insurance or pay a fine for it. So much for helping the working class

$28,000 x 2.5% = $700

[xav]

Individual Mandate:

* In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.


WTF Seriously?

I don't think anybody in europe can "opt out" of the globabl/socialized/state provided healthcare.

[Sakop]

And what about the people that "opt out"? what happends if they need medical treatment? who pays for that? looks like we will still have people going bankrupt because of health insurance.... Yes, this really solved the healthcare issue!

[ronnieraygun]

$695 annual is right at $58 per month. That is how much I pay for full coverage now.

I doubt it. I had heard the cost for a single person required to buy into a government plan to be more around the 200 per month mark. Sorry to spread possible misinformation, but 58 bucks a month is quite optimistic. But that's the problem with the plan from the get go, if it's so important and such a sweeping overhaul where is the transparency in the important details?

You HAVE to pay for insurance or you are fined, or go to jail.

Again, I had heard it would be enforced as a civil fine much like states do when you owe them money - if you have not paid at tax time, it gets recaptured out of your return. I had honestly heard from a talking head on NPR that the fine collection mechanism would be assessed by the IRS - again, it's not very transparent how they intend to do this. At no time did they say it would be a criminal matter and haul off low income people over 26 to jail.

[Hollis]

It seems nothing much happens till after the next presidential election. 2014 is the start date. A lot can happen until then. The bill can be improved to being removed.

[MPNFL]

ok, honest, not being sarcastic question: is health care an inherent right?

[Kaplanr]

So if I start with a broad stroke of the brush - "... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", then perhaps it is if the life part can only be sustained, protected or maintained through the bureaucratic, bizarrely structured system that is US healthcare.

[Hilbert]

ok, honest, not being sarcastic question: is health care an inherent right?

No.

10 Characters.

[Wimbly]

Tea party rallies can hardly be considered a numerical representative of "most Americans".

I beleive hes talking about national polls.


as is fitting of Liberal Mainstream Media™ to do.You guys crack me up. You want everyone to beleive Fox is the most evil, right wing propaganda entity to ever exist, but any suggestion that YOUR news is just as biased is treated with flippant dismissal.


I don't like the idea of people not getting the best possible medical attention just because they're poor.

If this bill puts an end to it - great.

No more "John Q."-cases.

You're so generous with other people's money and liberty.


ok, honest, not being sarcastic question: is health care an inherent right?

Because it relies on the skill and labor of other people, no. You have a right to keep yourself healthy, but not to force others to do it for you.

[MPNFL]

I beleive hes talking about national polls.

You guys crack me up. You want everyone to beleive Fox is the most evil, right wing propaganda entity to ever exist, but any suggestion that YOUR news is just as biased is treated with flippant dismissal.



You're so generous with other people's money and liberty.



Because it relies on the skill and labor of other people, no. You have a right to keep yourself healthy, but not to force others to do it for you.

doesn't that apply to other aspects provided by the govt? (state/local)? how about the need for a Fire Department? skill and labor of the other people, yes. You have the right to stay away from a fire but others can't do that for you...yes?

[Wimbly]

doesn't that apply to other aspects provided by the govt? (state/local)? how about the need for a Fire Department? skill and labor of the other people

Volunteers. Not to mention they are run by small, local governments and used for services that affect a city as a whole. Its absolutely nothing like nationalized health care.

Why isn't housing a right, or a car? Why do we work at all?

[MPNFL]

^^good point.

[LineDoggie]

I wonder if this will go to the Supreme Court to decide the Constitutionality of forcing Americans to buy into this?

By the way a Healthcare Bill that includes Student Loans? WHat else, Cash for Cantalopes?

[Zoomie]

I wonder if this will go to the Supreme Court to decide the Constitutionality of forcing Americans to buy into this?

By the way a Healthcare Bill that includes Student Loans? WHat else, Cash for Cantalopes?
VA, SC, FL, TX, NE, UT, ND, SD, WA, PA, OK, and AL's AGs will be filining suit tomorrow.

[bates]

The whole argument about not wanting to provide people with a free ride would make sense, if you were not already.

Just about every economic mind without clear ties to either party, that have an understanding of health care economics, has signed off on this. None of them think it is near perfect, but all think it is vital, and a good foundation to build upon. Hopefully Republicans can swallow their pride and help make the changes that would make this bill better over the years ahead. Somehow I dont see that though...

And at least some prominent Republican writers have already begun to question the intelligence surrounding the Republican stance during all of this. Not to mention classic conservatives like myself, who tend to be even more disappointed with the party that is supposed to reflect our vales, but lost it's way many decades ago. This is simply a continuation of a wildly ideological party playing the role of destroyer, instead of conserver. While we sit and watch the other party actually fill our role better than we have for the last 30-40 years.

And this really changes nothing in that regard. A fringe group of Tea Partiers is not some sort of answer. Discontent is split down the middle. The idea that the GOP has a serious identity crisis, hasn't changed. This whole thing just managed to take some of the spotlight off of them. Which will be back on them in around 18 months. And who are they going to prance out there? Romney? His bill was almost identical to this bill. Do you guys realize that?

[Burntrubber87]

Seems like Obama cares more about healthcare reform than he does about the next election.

[TraumaDoc]

So if I start with a broad stroke of the brush - "... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", then perhaps it is if the life part can only be sustained, protected or maintained through the bureaucratic, bizarrely structured system that is US healthcare.

The intent of the Framers of the Constitution was to protect the people from the actions of government that would limit or infringe on these rights, not to create a government entitlement to every benefit that might facilitate an individuals enjoyment of them.

[seraosha]

The whole argument about not wanting to provide people with a free ride would make sense, if you were not already.

Just about every economic mind without clear ties to either party, that have an understanding of health care economics, has signed off on this. None of them think it is near perfect, but all think it is vital, and a good foundation to build upon. Hopefully Republicans can swallow their pride and help make the changes that would make this bill better over the years ahead. Somehow I dont see that though...

And at least some prominent Republican writers have already begun to question the intelligence surrounding the Republican stance during all of this. Not to mention classic conservatives like myself, who tend to be even more disappointed with the party that is supposed to reflect our vales, but lost it's way many decades ago. This is simply a continuation of a wildly ideological party playing the role of destroyer, instead of conserver. While we sit and watch the other party actually fill our role better than we have for the last 30-40 years.

And this really changes nothing in that regard. A fringe group of Tea Partiers is not some sort of answer. Discontent is split down the middle. The idea that the GOP has a serious identity crisis, hasn't changed. This whole thing just managed to take some of the spotlight off of them. Which will be back on them in around 18 months. And who are they going to prance out there? Romney? His bill was almost identical to this bill. Do you guys realize that?

Oh wow...this is a first post, and with a nifty named avatar to boot? Something smells fishy.

[Geezah]

Oh wow...this is a first post, and with a nifty named avatar to boot? Something smells fishy.

You smell fish as well...........

[Geezah]

And what about the people that "opt out"? what happends if they need medical treatment? who pays for that? looks like we will still have people going bankrupt because of health insurance.... Yes, this really solved the healthcare issue!

O rely, so just how many people are going bankrupt over health insurance???

[Corrupt]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

Just like everytime you try and raise that defence a 10 second google search provides an answer...more than 60% of bankrupcies are due to medical costs apparantly. Id like to think thats something entirely avoidable

[TraumaDoc]

The whole argument about not wanting to provide people with a free ride would make sense, if you were not already.

Just about every economic mind without clear ties to either party, that have an understanding of health care economics, has signed off on this.

Many people are being given a free ride, true; but that is not a valid reason to double the ride. You apparently are referring to every liberal economic mind,or can you name some names? Your arguments certainly don't sound conservative unless you mean conservative for Boston or San Francisco.

[Glaz]

You guys crack me up. You want everyone to beleive Fox is the most evil, right wing propaganda entity to ever exist, but any suggestion that YOUR news is just as biased is treated with flippant dismissal.
Evil?! Hey buddy, are you accusing me of rocking a rainbow flag bumper sticker or something? I'll have you know, I dig hot news anchorettes sitting with their shapely legs crossed and skirts pulled up to here (points to area just slightly south of crotch) as much as the next guy. I wouldn't exactly have used their "fair and balanced...we report, you decide" moniker if I was them, as it doesn't quite fit like a glove. But then, it certainly wouldn't fit MSNBC either.


Volunteers. Not to mention they are run by small, local governments and used for services that affect a city as a whole. Its absolutely nothing like nationalized health care.
Outside of small towns, you won't find many volunteer FD's. In the cities, all paid, by tax dollars, for the greater good.

[NineLine]

well, if this does go all the way, at least I can chew as many cans of dip as I want.... and the government can pay for my cancer after I get out. Sweet.

[Wimbly]

well, if this does go all the way, at least I can chew as many cans of dip as I want.... and the government can pay for my cancer after I get out. Sweet.

What makes you think they'll let you chew dip? They're already talking about ways to force American to "change their lifestyles". If you think that doesn't mean "force", than you have a rude awakening coming.

I've heard a lot of people say, "it works in the military". Yeah, but you aren't free in the military. In fact, you're property. Get a bad sunburn and you haven't hurt yourself, you've damaged government property. That isn't how free people are supposed to live.

[Flagg]

Seems like Obama cares more about healthcare reform than he does about the next election.

I would disagree..........

I tend to think the entire reason why health care "reform" is being rammed down everyone's throat is specifically BECAUSE of the next election cycle.

I wonder if we can borrow Lee Kuan Yew from Singapore for a year before he takes a dirt nap...and give him a one year contract as Grand Poobah of the US.

Maybe it's time we had someone extra smart and long term thinky like Lee Kuan Yew who gets an honorary special seat in Congress with a special bullhorn and the right to interrupt anyone at anytime and tell them they are a frickin retard.

We could call the job Consigliere...most fitting I think.

At the moment we seem to be getting exactly what we deserve.

[bates]

Oh wow...this is a first post, and with a nifty named avatar to boot? Something smells fishy.

I work for Bates footwear, in R&D. Anyone has any questions, etc, feel free to PM me.

I was unaware this was such a glamorous job that I would be challenged as to the validity of my online persona here...:) Is this the general tone of this place? Or just from certain people?

Joined a bit ago, travel a lot, but biggest piece of legislation in our lifetimes, so I decided to speak up.


Many people are being given a free ride, true; but that is not a valid reason to double the ride.

How does it double the ride exactly? We spend more treating disease in the uninsured, because there is no preventative care to begin with. They see the Dr late in the game, when it costs us more. Again, if anything, it cuts the free ride in half, at very least.

Again, already paying. And in this small exchange, is where the truth comes out. People have no problem pouring billions into Haiti just so they can likely destroy much of any infrastructure we contribute to sometime down the road, but god forbid we help anyone here, whether it makes fiscal sense, or not.


Your arguments certainly don't sound conservative unless you mean conservative for Boston or San Francisco.

Based on what most people today consider a conservative to be, I suppose not.



In all, CBO has projected that the Senate bill would raise enough revenue and sufficiently cut existing spending to both cover its costs and reduce the federal deficit in the near and long term.


For fiscal hawks, that's a powerful incentive for action. But equally compelling could be the price of inaction. If Obama's plan fails, as President Clinton's did, it's likely that no president will attempt to seriously expand coverage for many years. The independent Medicare actuary has projected that under current trends the number of uninsured will increase by 10 million, to about 57 million, by 2019. Providing uncompensated care to so many uninsured people would further strain physicians and hospitals -- and inflate premiums as those providers shift costs to their insured patients.

"There is risk either way," says Len Nichols, director of George Mason University's Center for Health Policy Research. "There is risk if you [pass it], and there is risk if you don't."

Some fiscal conservatives want to attack rising costs without expanding coverage. But that approach looks impractical, politically and economically. While Republicans controlled Congress after the 1994 election, they never built enough of a consensus to pass the cost-control ideas they are now pressing on Obama, such as medical malpractice reform. Meanwhile, Nichols warns that imposing meaningful cost control on hospitals without reducing the number of uninsured patients they must treat "would bankrupt many and strain most to the breaking point."

Weighing such factors, Nichols concludes that the "risk of doing nothing" exceeds the risk of passing the bill. In interviews, Emory University's Kenneth Thorpe and Stanford
University's Alan Garber, two other leading health economists, guardedly echoed his conclusion. Both men believe that the current proposal could move faster to control costs. But both also agree that it contains valuable first steps and establishes what Garber calls "a good platform" for further reform. By contrast, Thorpe says, "under the do-nothing scenario, everything gets worse." For Democratic fiscal hawks uncertain that approving Obama's plan will cure what ails U.S. health care, the real question may be whether defeating it guarantees that the system's chronic afflictions will metastasize further.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100313_8731.php

[Geezah]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

Just like everytime you try and raise that defence a 10 second google search provides an answer...more than 60% of bankrupcies are due to medical costs apparantly. Id like to think thats something entirely avoidable

Amazing isn't, how you choose to ignore information that proves that the myth about the majority of people filling bankruptcy over medical bills is nothing more that a MYTH!


The Healthcare Bankruptcy Myth

Few figures in American life have suffered as publicly as Elizabeth Edwards, a cancer survivor whose son was killed in a car accident, the betrayed wife of presidential candidate John Edwards. Like a classic Greek heroine, she has only one flaw: she is too trusting. This week, she was duped into endorsing a flawed bankruptcy study that was transparently intended to support a single-payer health care plan.

In testimony before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, Mrs. Edwards declared, "Medical debt is, of course, a symptom of larger problems in our health care system-and the solution to medical debt and medical bankruptcy is real health reform that results in affordable, reliable health coverage and affordable health care for all Americans."

Mrs. Edwards based her testimony on a study in the American Journal of Medicine conducted by Dr. David Himmelstein and other researchers from Harvard University and Ohio University. An unassuming reader might conclude that medical debts are the major cause of personal bankruptcy in America, because the study finds that 62% of bankruptcies in 2007 were "medical."

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers of Michigan, who should know better, said "This surge in medical bankruptcies demonstrates why health care reform is urgently needed right now. So many people's lives are uprooted, and their financial security destroyed, by unexpected medical costs."

But fewer than one percent of Americans enter bankruptcy each year. Of those, only three to five percent are plausibly bankrupt due to medical debt. These numbers present the inconvenient truth that our health system is not leading to bankruptcy in America.

The Himmelstein study paints a picture of an American middle class that even with health insurance coverage is being bankrupted by health care costs. The share of bankruptcies attributable to health care costs rose by 50%between 2001 and 2007, according to the study. The message is that rising health care costs bankrupt the insured middle class as well as the uninsured lower class.

The only problem is that the study is fatally flawed. Dr. Himmelstein is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization that describes itself on its Web site as "the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program." An additional Harvard coauthor, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, is co-founder and secretary of the organization. Even though the article states on the front page that the authors have no conflict of interest, two are self-declared activists for single-payer health care, and they have twisted the data to fit their cause.

Aparna Mathur, an American Enterprise Institute research fellow and another witness in the hearing, told me in a telephone conversation that "the Himmelstein surveys overstate the effect of medical debts on bankruptcy. Despite obvious problems with the survey methodology, it was clear to me during the testimony yesterday that the study was being used as a pretext for making the case for universal health insurance."

Dr. Himmelstein's study contradicts the economics literature on personal bankruptcies. Most reputable studies are based on the Survey of Consumer Finances, published by the Federal Reserve, which lists different types of consumer debt. Medical debt rose slightly from 5.5% of all debt in 2001 to 5.8% of all debt in 2007, according to the Fed.

A study by the Department of Justice examined more than 5,000 bankruptcy cases between 2000 and 2002. It found that 54% of bankruptcies involve no medical debt, and more than 90% have medical debt of less than $5,000. Even among the minority of bankruptcies that report medical debt, only a few have enough to cause personal bankruptcy.

Dr. Himmelstein gets different results because he uses a smaller sample and a different methodology than other studies. He started with a random sample of 5,251 bankruptcy petitions and wound up through a series of screenings only using 1,032. His survey assumes that when a medical problem is mentioned that associated medical costs are automatically associated with bankruptcy. In addition, anyone is counted as medically bankrupt if they cite illness or medical bills as a reason for bankruptcy, even if other debts, such as foreclosure and credit card debt, are a primary reason.

Furthermore, if respondents lost two weeks of work due to illness or injury they were counted as medically bankrupt, even if they had no medical debt. Hypothetically, someone could go into bankruptcy while on Medicare or Medicaid, even if they owed no medical bills at all.

Yet using Dr. Himmelstein's methodology, even single-payer health care would not solve the medical bankruptcy problem. People would still lose work time to illness, perhaps even more time than under the current system, because health care would be of lower quality. Under Britain's single-payer system, for example, people who think they might have swine flu are not being seen by doctors. Instead, they are asked to stay home and consult with the doctor over the phone.

More and more Americans understand that adding $1 trillion to government spending for health care reform won't fix our economic crisis. So proponents of single-payer health care bring out poor Elizabeth Edwards to justify their made-up numbers on medical bankruptcy. Shame on them.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a contributing editor of RealClearMarkets and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.


Link (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/07/30/the_medical_bankruptcy_myth_97335.html)

I know you're almost half my age, but come on, you should be able to remember something from our previous duels....

Anywho, who do you prefer to believe a bunk scientist or a study by the Department of Justice?


The Medical Bankruptcy Myth

There is no evidence to indicate that a government-run healthcare system in the United States will reduce personal bankruptcies.

The debate about American healthcare is being influenced by recent controversial research claiming to show that nearly two-thirds of personal bankruptcies in the United States resulted from uninsured medical expenses or loss of income due to illness. An earlier 2005 edition of this research claimed that just over half of personal bankruptcies were due to these “medical causes.” The authors of these studies, David Himmelstein, Deborah Thorne, Elizabeth Warren, and Steffie Woolhandler, argue that the problem of “medical bankruptcies” would be solved by the adoption of a government-run health insurance system like Canada’s.

The research has been politically persuasive. President Obama himself cited the dubious link between medical expenses and personal bankruptcy as part of his rationale for a massive increase of government involvement in healthcare. “The cost of healthcare now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds,” he declared in March. “By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes.”

A July 28 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee titled, “Is Our Healthcare System Bankrupting Americans?” prominently featured the medical bankruptcy study. More recently, in a USA Today column, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer cited medical bankruptcy to justify their healthcare overhaul efforts.

Yet the medical bankruptcy study has been soundly refuted by several researchers. This includes critiques published by David Dranove and Michael Millenson in Health Affairs and a working paper by the American Enterprise Institute’s Aparna Mathur. The idea that large numbers of Americans are declaring bankruptcy due to medical expenses is a myth.

Dranove and Millenson critically analyzed the data from the 2005 edition of the medical bankruptcy study. They found that medical spending was a contributing factor in only 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies. They also reviewed other research, including studies by the Department of Justice, finding that medical debts accounted for only 12 percent to 13 percent of the total debts among American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy.

As for the notion that greater government involvement in health insurance will reduce bankruptcy, it is helpful to compare personal bankruptcy rates in the United States and Canada. Unlike the United States, Canada has a universal, government-run health insurance system. Following the logic of Himmelstein and colleagues, we should therefore expect to observe a lower rate of personal bankruptcy in Canada compared to the United States.

Yet the evidence shows that in the only comparable years, personal bankruptcy rates were actually higher in Canada. Personal bankruptcy filings as a percentage of the population were 0.20 percent in the United States during 2006 and 0.27 percent in 2007. In Canada, the numbers are 0.30 percent in both 2006 and 2007. The data are from government sources and defined in similar ways for both countries and cover the time period after the legal reforms to U.S. bankruptcy laws in 2005 and before the onset of the 2008 economic recession.

This is important, because the 2005 reforms produced U.S. legal standards for bankruptcy filing that are now very similar to Canada’s. Before 2005 it was much easier to file for bankruptcy in the United States, making cross-border comparisons prior to the legal changes meaningless. Further, in 2008 the United States was harmed by massive systemic home mortgage defaults that did not occur in Canada because of differences in mortgage lending practices. U.S. mortgage defaults would have been correlated with increased bankruptcy rates. Therefore, Canada-U.S. comparisons in 2008 are not valid because the data is skewed by other policy differences unrelated to health insurance.

Aside from universal single-payer health insurance, there are few other significant health, social, or legal policy differences between the two countries that could be causally linked to bankruptcy rates. Both countries have employment insurance programs that provide income support in the event of job loss. In fact, unemployment occurs with roughly similar frequency among Canadians and Americans. National unemployment rates in 2007 were 5.3 percent in Canada versus 4.6 percent in the United States.

Drug insurance is also structured almost identically, so exposure to drug costs is similar in both countries. While the entire Canadian population is universally eligible for publicly funded insurance for hospital and physician services, only about one-third of the Canadian population is publicly insured for prescription drugs. In Canada, as in the United States, low-income people, disabled populations, and seniors are eligible for separate publicly funded drug programs, while most employed people obtain drug insurance as a benefit of employment, and the rest of the population pays cash.

Access to medical care for people who experience long-term unemployment, disability from illness, and chronic low-income status is also practically the same in both countries, being facilitated by non-profit, publicly funded community health centers and public programs such as Medicaid in the United States and government-run systems in Canada.

The truth is that the majority of debt among bankrupt consumers in both Canada and the United States is comprised of non-medical expenditures and therefore has little to do with health insurance coverage.

On the rare occasion that medical debts do partially contribute to bankruptcy, they likely accumulate from patients’ demands for the kinds of expensive, cutting-edge or end-of-life treatments that would never be covered by government insurance anyway. It is a fact that many of these same types of expensive treatments are increasingly not insured by government healthcare in Canada.

Indeed, if we define medical bankruptcies the way Himmelstein and colleagues did for their study in the United States, we find such bankruptcies also occur in Canada. Survey research commissioned by the Canadian government found that despite having a government-run health system, medical reasons (including uninsured expenses), were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).

There is no objective evidence to indicate that a government-run health care system in the United States will reduce personal bankruptcies. The U.S.-Canada comparative analysis strongly suggests that bankruptcy statistics are being exaggerated and distorted for political reasons.

Brett J. Skinner is director of bio-pharma, health, and insurance policy at the Fraser Institute and is the primary author of a recently published study, "Health Insurance and Bankruptcy Rates in Canada and the United States." He lives in Toronto.

Link (http://american.com/archive/2009/august/the-medical-bankruptcy-myth)

[Surf City]

Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill
................http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4834860

Immigration:


Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

So what do you think the next national issue that Barry will be working on is exactly?!?

Here's a hint: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/us/politics/22immig.html?scp=2&sq=immigration&st=cse

What a coincidence that this took place on the same weekend.

In related news, Mayor Villaraigosa thanks congress and his "sister"(fellow botox fan), Nancy Pelosi, for passing healthcare b/c Los Angeles has the largest population of uninsured "residents" (illegals) in the U.S.

link: http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_14730544

IMHO, the anger from most Americans over health care has less to do with health care than with the government's priorities over issues facing the U.S.. Maybe I'm reaching but I'd say the economy should be first, last and foremost as an agenda for this government to address and everything else is secondary?

And please don't tell me that the CBO says this thing is going to reduce the deficit b/c that is just plain stupid. How the hell is a plan this massive, with all of the backroom deals, kickbacks and whoring out going to lower the deficit exactly? If you tell me b/c we have to start paying right away for something that won't be implemented for another 4 years then I'll agree with you but otherwise I'd say CBO's numbers are bull****.

[seraosha]

I work for Bates footwear, in R&D. Anyone has any questions, etc, feel free to PM me.
I was unaware this was such a glamorous job that I would be challenged as to the validity of my online persona here...:) Is this the general tone of this place? Or just from certain people?
Joined a bit ago, travel a lot, but biggest piece of legislation in our lifetimes, so I decided to speak up.


Sure, even shoe folks have opinions, but interesting choice of a first post, coinciding with an interesting topic...
I guess...but lets not start on the wrong foot (sorry too hard to resist) Welcome to the forum.

[Kaplanr]

The intent of the Framers of the Constitution was to protect the people from the actions of government that would limit or infringe on these rights, not to create a government entitlement to every benefit that might facilitate an individuals enjoyment of them.

Just so we're clear, my quote comes from the Deceleration of Independence and I'm using it to establish a base (admittedly weak) in answer to the question about health care being an inherent right. I agree with most of your observation about the Constitution though I could only guess they'd have no clue what to make of everything after "...these rights,". The notion of entitlements, even expanding ones didn't start here and now, and so far the court has been loathe to cry "foul" As a rhetorical argument why wouldn't health fall under the preamble's mention of "promote the general welfare"?

[Corrupt]

Amazing isn't, how you choose to ignore information that proves that the myth about the majority of people filling bankruptcy over medical bills is nothing more that a MYTH!

Even in your post showing how its a myth it states (and you highlighted)
It found that 54% of bankruptcies involve no medical debt, and more than 90% have medical debt of less than $5,000.
So 10% of bankrupcies in the US (Of which there are apparantly 1.5 million a year, so roughly 100,000 americans) are caused by medical debts over 5k and another 36% caused by those under 5k. And yet you still try to prove its a myth?

I personally thinks its rediculous that anyone should be declared bankrupt, wholey or partly due to being unable to afford medical care in a first world country

[Smitty_Damitty]

What makes you think they'll let you chew dip? They're already talking about ways to force American to "change their lifestyles". If you think that doesn't mean "force", than you have a rude awakening coming.

I've heard a lot of people say, "it works in the military". Yeah, but you aren't free in the military. In fact, you're property. Get a bad sunburn and you haven't hurt yourself, you've damaged government property. That isn't how free people are supposed to live.

HAHAHA!!! That's so far of a stretch that it is hilarious.

[HK in AK]

I worry the health care bill does not move reform in the correct direction that improves the condition of life for citizens. The debate has gone one since the days of Teddy Rosevelt, but only is not a hot / burning issues because of the anticipated cost curve over the next 5 - 10 years. Several entitlement programs (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) are all coming to a peak of demand and unsustainability. Now we are going to find out if how our way of life is going to change.

[TraumaDoc]

Amazing isn't, how you choose to ignore information that proves that the myth about the majority of people filling bankruptcy over medical bills is nothing more that a MYTH!

Thank you Geezah, I knew that I had heard the name Woolhandler before but I couldn't remember where. She and that organization are enough to give research a bad name. Also, even if the claims of bankruptcy were true about people with insurance the only answer would be to make healthcare free with no copayment or deductable. This would lead to an astronomical rise in demand.

[kimujnr]

HAHAHA!!! That's so far of a stretch that it is hilarious.

That wasn't a strech, that there was Wimbly!!!

[NineLine]

What makes you think they'll let you chew dip? They're already talking about ways to force American to "change their lifestyles". If you think that doesn't mean "force", than you have a rude awakening coming.

I've heard a lot of people say, "it works in the military". Yeah, but you aren't free in the military. In fact, you're property. Get a bad sunburn and you haven't hurt yourself, you've damaged government property. That isn't how free people are supposed to live.


1) I'm not fvcking property...and that's not how military healthcare works. There are JAG regulations as to what constitutes "in the line of duty" and trust me getting sunburn isn't one of them.

2) I was being sarcastic.

3) Watch how fast the country turns on its ass when you start telling people they can't smoke or chew. I can see incentives to quitting happening ( lower premiums) but not outright banning tobacco use. Not to mention ruining the economies of certain rural areas in the south. Take the tin foil hat off man.

[BlackFlag]

3) Watch how fast the country turns on its ass when you start telling people they can't smoke or chew. I can see incentives to quitting happening ( lower premiums) but not outright banning tobacco use. Not to mention ruining the economies of certain rural areas in the south. Take the tin foil hat off man.

That isn't how it happens. First, a smoking ban in restaurants and bars will come into affect, like the one scheduled for Michigan starting May 1st. Then "Tobacco Free" areas, like outside of hospitals, colleges, federal buildings etc. Then, the tax the crap out of Tobacco. They whittle away your ability to do what you want until it's not worth doing anymore.

[Smitty_Damitty]

1) I'm not fvcking property...and that's not how military healthcare works. There are JAG regulations as to what constitutes "in the line of duty" and trust me getting sunburn isn't one of them.

2) I was being sarcastic.

3) Watch how fast the country turns on its ass when you start telling people they can't smoke or chew. I can see incentives to quitting happening ( lower premiums) but not outright banning tobacco use. Not to mention ruining the economies of certain rural areas in the south. Take the tin foil hat off man.

X2. Obviously, someone hasn't heard about what happened the last time the gov't tried to force the public into changing their lifestyle. It was called Prohibition, and it was an outright failure.

[Corrupt]

That isn't how it happens. First, a smoking ban in restaurants and bars will come into affect, like the one scheduled for Michigan starting May 1st. Then "Tobacco Free" areas, like outside of hospitals, colleges, federal buildings etc. Then, the tax the crap out of Tobacco. They whittle away your ability to do what you want until it's not worth doing anymore.

Well its gotten as far as a complete ban on smoking inside public buildings throughout the UK, and it was always heavily taxed, but I dont see it going any further to be honest...

[TraumaDoc]

HAHAHA!!! That's so far of a stretch that it is hilarious.

Is it a stretch? I can remember when cigarettes were 30 cents a pack and just last year the feds added a dollar a pack tax on top of the taxes already present. The reason is to reduce tobacco use which adds significantly to overall medical bills. Similar taxes on alcohol are being suggested in the medical blogs. Obesity is being targeted, with you forced to use your vacation to attend a biggest loser type camp run in a military style. People, doctors can only do so much. If patients won't change unhealthy lifestyle choices we are fighting a losing battle. People in medical academia and in the Obama administration are serious about forcing you to make healthy choices.

[Geezah]

That isn't how it happens. First, a smoking ban in restaurants and bars will come into affect, like the one scheduled for Michigan starting May 1st. Then "Tobacco Free" areas, like outside of hospitals, colleges, federal buildings etc. Then, the tax the crap out of Tobacco. They whittle away your ability to do what you want until it's not worth doing anymore.

There has been a ban on smoking in all public places for the last few years in OHIO. Bars, bowling alleys, all resturants.

I actually voted in favour of the ban as the other choice was to allow more freedoms to smokers, which I didn't agree with. It was only after I voted in favour of the ban, I realized I was no better than the LibTards and should have passed and should have voted no on both, that way it would have stayed the way it was.

[Corrupt]

Is it a stretch? I can remember when cigarettes were 30 cents a pack and just last year the feds added a dollar a pack tax on top of the taxes already present. The reason is to reduce tobacco use which adds significantly to overall medical bills. Similar taxes on alcohol are being suggested in the medical blogs.

While the medics might love it for extending life expectency, that only adds more costs to keeping people alive anyway at the end of their life. It wouldnt be much cheaper. Plus I do think the government loves the millions it makes from the taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Doubt they'd drop that revenue stream so easily

[Smitty_Damitty]

Is it a stretch? I can remember when cigarettes were 30 cents a pack and just last year the feds added a dollar a pack tax on top of the taxes already present. The reason is to reduce tobacco use which adds significantly to overall medical bills. Similar taxes on alcohol are being suggested in the medical blogs. Obesity is being targeted, with you forced to use your vacation to attend a biggest loser type camp run in a military style. People, doctors can only do so much. If patients won't change unhealthy lifestyle choices we are fighting a losing battle. People in medical academia and in the Obama administration are serious about forcing you to make healthy choices.

The stretch I was referring to was the whole "servicemen as gov't property" deal. And where is your source on making people attend a civvie "fat boy" program. That sounds like rubbish, IMHO. Didn't say it wasn't suggested but, suggestions does not a policy make.

[NineLine]

That isn't how it happens. First, a smoking ban in restaurants and bars will come into affect, like the one scheduled for Michigan starting May 1st. Then "Tobacco Free" areas, like outside of hospitals, colleges, federal buildings etc. Then, the tax the crap out of Tobacco. They whittle away your ability to do what you want until it's not worth doing anymore.


Again, the tinfoil hat, please remove it.

The country has bigger fish to fry. Besides this has already happened except when the state stands to lose something, like in the midwest. You can't smoke indoors except in casinos. Why?...hmmm I dunno but I bet you it has something to do with politicians stepping over their boundaries.

[TraumaDoc]

X2. Obviously, someone hasn't heard about what happened the last time the gov't tried to force the public into changing their lifestyle. It was called Prohibition, and it was an outright failure.

Wake up Smitty; They are doing the same thing right now, called the "war on drugs" with the same result, total failure and a huge increase in crime. Prior abject failure has never discouraged a politician or a fanatic with a cause.

[CG51]

Along with the longer term changes of the health reform, some changes will take place soon after the bill becomes law -- unless there are last minute changes in the House debate Sunday night. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says the key reforms which take place in the short term after President Obama signs the law include:

1. SMALL BUSINESS TAX CREDITS-- Offers tax credits to small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable. Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage. Effective beginning for calendar year 2010. (Beginning in 2014, the small business tax credits will cover 50 percent of premiums.)

2. BEGINS TO CLOSE THE MEDICARE PART D DONUT HOLE-- Provides a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010. Effective for calendar year 2010. (Beginning in 2011, institutes a 50% discount on brand-name drugs in the donut hole; also completely closes the donut hole by 2020.)


3. FREE PREVENTIVE CARE UNDER MEDICARE-- Eliminates co-payments for preventive services and exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program. Effective beginning January 1, 2011.


4. HELP FOR EARLY RETIREES-- Creates a temporary re-insurance program (until the Exchanges are available) to help offset the costs of expensive health claims for employers that provde health benefits for retirees age 55-64. Effective 90 days after enactment

5. ENDS RESCISSIONS-- Bans health plans from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Effective 6 months after enactment.

6. NO DISCRIMINATON AGAINST CHILDREN WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS-- Prohibits health plans from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, this prohibition would apply to all persons.)

7. BANS LIFETIME LIMITS ON COVERAGE-- Prohibits health plans from placing lifetime caps on coverage. Effective 6 months after enactment.

8. BANS RESTRICTIVE ANNUAL LIMITS ON COVERAGE-- Tightly restricts new plans' use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care. These tight restrictions will be defined by HHS. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, the use of any annual limits would be prohibited for all plans.)

More Coverage of the Health Care Reform Debate: Latest Developments on the Health Care Vote (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000843-503544.html)
Latest Vote Count (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000844-503544.html)
Health Care Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html)
Health Care Bill Clears Procedural Hurdle (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/21/politics/main6320207.shtml)
Obama to House: Health Care Reform is in Your Hands (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000838-503544.html)
CBS Sunday Morning: Obama's Bill of Health (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/21/sunday/main6319577.shtml)
Rep.: Protesters Yelled Racial Slurs (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/20/politics/main6318517.shtml)
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care (http://www.cbsnews.com/healthcare)

9. FREE PREVENTIVE CARE UNDER NEW PRIVATE PLANS-- Requires new private plans to cover preventive services with no co-payments and with preventive services being exempt from deductibles. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2018, this requirement applies to all plans.)

10. NEW, INDEPENDENT APPEALS PROCESS-- Ensures consumers in new plans have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal decisions by their health insurance plan. Effective 6 months after enactment.

11. ENSURING VALUE FOR PREMIUM PAYMENTS-- Requires plans in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on medical services, and plans in the large group market to spend 85 percent. Insurers that do not meet these thresholds must provide rebates to policyholders. Effective on January 1, 2011.

12. IMMEDIATE HELP FOR THE UNINSURED UNTIL EXCHANGE IS AVAILABLE (INTERIM HIGH-RISK POOL)-- Provides immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition - through a temporary high-risk pool. Effective 90 days after enactment.

13. EXTENDS COVERAGE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE UP TO 26TH BIRTHDAY THROUGH PARENTS' INSURANCE - Requires health plans to allow young people up to their 26th birthday to remain on their parents' insurance policy, at the parents' choice. Effective 6 months after enactment.

14. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS-- Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for nearly a doubling of the number of patients seen by the centers over the next 5 years. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2010.

15. 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. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2010.

16. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SALARY-- Prohibits new group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. Effective 6 months after enactment.

17. HEALTH INSURANCE CONSUMER INFORMATION-- Provides aid to states in establishing offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals with the filing of complaints and appeals. Effective beginning in FY 2010.

18. 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. Effective on January 1, 2011.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000848-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[Geezah]

Even in your post showing how its a myth it states (and you highlighted)
It found that 54% of bankruptcies involve no medical debt, and more than 90% have medical debt of less than $5,000.
So 10% of bankrupcies in the US (Of which there are apparantly 1.5 million a year, so roughly 100,000 americans) are caused by medical debts over 5k and another 36% caused by those under 5k. And yet you still try to prove its a myth?

I'm not trying to prove anything, the numbers are already there, after all it's been shoved done out throats by the likes of yourself that the numbers were much higher.

As far as owning money for medical procedures, why not. I had to pay my deductible for the surgeries I recieved and it was top notch and took place in a time frame that suited me. I found out I had torn medial meniscus, roughly three weeks laters I had surgery and the only reason I put it off by three weeks was so I could sort out my schedule and back up at work.



I personally thinks its rediculous that anyone should be declared bankrupt, wholey or partly due to being unable to afford medical care in a first world country

You don't have to, but if you had read abit further you would find that only a small minority have enough to justify filing for bankruptcy.

When ever I have to pay for my medical debt, I always work out a payment plan. That way you don't pay it all at once and the billing departments are always willing to work with you.

[Geezah]

Again, the tinfoil hat, please remove it.

The country has bigger fish to fry. Besides this has already happened except when the state stands to lose something, like in the midwest. You can't smoke indoors except in casinos. Why?...hmmm I dunno but I bet you it has something to do with politicians stepping over their boundaries.

This has happened in OHIO, plus as soon as Obama got into office he increased taxes on tobacco, even after pledging no new taxes....

[Atlantic Friend]

So, the bill has passed, the US of A is now a Communist dictatorship, and the Constitution has probably spontaneously bust into flames. Shall the US Army mutiny against the illegal Kenyan-inspired regime, shall we see a massive exodus of true red-blooded American patriots, or are we finally going to wake up to a world acknowledging that, either bad or good, health care reform is a rather mundane issue that a modern state like the US can debate without self-destructing nor magically turning into the Soviet Union reincarnate?

[Smitty_Damitty]

Wake up Smitty; They are doing the same thing right now, called the "war on drugs" with the same result, total failure and a huge increase in crime. Prior abject failure has never discouraged a politician or a fanatic with a cause.

Oh, you're absolutely right about that. So, what do you suggest we do about it? I've seen responsible drinkers and smokers, as well as irresponsible ones. But, I have never seen a responsible user of controlled substances (excluding marijuana). Regardless of how one feels about the effectiveness of "The War on Drugs", does is its prosecution somehow encroach upon the pursuit of "liberty" or "freedom"?

Apples and Oranges.

[Corrupt]

I'm not trying to prove anything, the numbers are already there, after all it's been shoved done out throats by the likes of yourself that the numbers were much higher.
You don't have to, but if you had read abit further you would find that only a small minority have enough to justify filing for bankruptcy.

1) You said it was a myth, and your own sources said it was not. 46% of them apparantly were to some extent caused by medical costs. Thats hardly insignificat

2) Small minority is greater than the zero you find over here

3) Wheras Iv always recieved top notch care at no personal cost beyond taxes? Aswell as being able to choose when i want my treatment?

[NineLine]

Welp this thread has officially gone full retard - I'm out.

[Geezah]

1) You said it was a myth, and your own sources said it was not. 46% of them apparantly were to some extent caused by medical costs. Thats hardly insignificat

I guess the MYTH is the number that you tried to advertise as being FACT.


Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies




2) Small minority is greater than the zero you find over here

Something you seem to have overlooked is the fact that medical bills are not the only thing claimed when filling for bankruptcy(in that small minority), they seem to be part and parcel of everything else filed.



3) Wheras Iv always recieved top notch care at no personal cost beyond taxes?

Doesn't that statement cancel itself out, unless you do not currently pay taxes, as you have yet to enter the World of the working man and until that point it has yet cost you a penny?

I take it you like paying taxes as you must think those that have their hand out deserve your hard earned cash?
Granted there are things that deserve the money but there are plenty that do not.




Aswell as being able to choose when i want my treatment?

Yeah......OK

[Smitty_Damitty]

Welp this thread has officially gone full retard - I'm out.
Take me with you! You can't leave a doc behind...can you??:lol:

[11 Bravo]

If this monstertous thing does not get killed off in legal litigation and or by the obvious parlimentary devices it abused I'll be damned if I pay a red cent toward it. Onward marches the government bean counters counting beans they can never recoupe as the beans have already spilled out , were trampled or rotted where they lay. So in their quest to prove a negative all manner of hoodwinking o fnumbers by these very propagandist pro governmentistas will enter a new stage of deciet as they try more covert avenues to rob working peter to fluff up lazy paul .. again.

[Corrupt]

I guess the MYTH is the number that you tried to advertise as being FACT.

Something you seem to have overlooked is the fact that medical bills are not the only thing claimed when filling for bankruptcy(in that small minority), they seem to be part and parcel of everything else filed.

Doesn't that statement cancel itself out, unless you do not currently pay taxes, as you have yet to enter the World of the working man and until that point it has yet cost you a penny?
I take it you like paying taxes as you must think those that have their hand out deserve your hard earned cash?

Granted there are things that deserve the money but there are plenty that do not.


1) You said find me some proof. I searched it on google and hit on a cnn news piece as the top article. Maybe you should stop your media filling your heads with lies? Even when you tried to refute it you proved medical costs prove bankrupcies

2) No? I mean apart from taxes which everone pays a percentage on income above £5200 a year, I have not payed anything for medical treatment. I admit Iv only been in the working world for two years part time while I'm at uni, but I still pay taxes. I do not enjoy paying them, but I see the point of them and mostly agree with what they're spent on. I agree we have some problems especially around unemployment benefits being a bit easy to receive, but not with the NHS giving aid to anyone who requires. And from now until I retire I will have no problem with my taxes funding healthcare equally available to everyone. From each according to his means to each according to his needs.

[TraumaDoc]

Oh, you're absolutely right about that. So, what do you suggest we do about it? I've seen responsible drinkers and smokers, as well as irresponsible ones. But, I have never seen a responsible user of controlled substances (excluding marijuana). Regardless of how one feels about the effectiveness of "The War on Drugs", does is its prosecution somehow encroach upon the pursuit of "liberty" or "freedom"?
Apples and Oranges.

No it doesn't encroach on liberty or freedom tho it does encroach on sanity. Random drug testing for other than safety sensitive positions does encroach on liberty and freedom and should be stopped. The random testing of school students and ordinary employees is insane, not to mention stupid. And please don't tell me about the horrible effects of drugs; i was the medical director of an addictive disease unit for 3 years and have been a medical review officer (MRO) since 1992. I may not have seen it all,but close. A better question: is the war on drugs having any effect? well I read that street prices are down and purity is up and the US is sending 20 Billion dollars a year to cartels in Columbia. If this is winning I don't want to see losing.
My primary point was that our government is very capable of extreme measures once it reaches crusade statis and I fear that healthy lifestyle is headed that way.
Incidently, more likely than the government putting pressure on you it will be your employer who will call you in(if you are obese, or have HBP,ect) and will suggest that your next employment review will rate your health highly significant because health costs are so draining to the company, and they will pay for you to attend this fat farm if you chose to use your vacation,ect.

[Geezah]

1) You said find me some proof. I searched it on google and hit on a cnn news piece as the top article. Maybe you should stop your media filling your heads with lies? Even when you tried to refute it you proved medical costs prove bankrupcies

So is that proof?

Alot of the Brits dismiss the Daily Mail, well cnn is not really a great source, considering they are the lap dog of the Left.

There is a small minority of people that file medical bills when filing bankrutpcies, but it is not the only thing filed. Do you have any idea how bankrutpcies work over here?



2) No? I mean apart from taxes which everone pays a percentage on income above £5200 a year, I have not payed anything for medical treatment. I admit Iv only been in the working world for two years part time while I'm at uni, but I still pay taxes. I do not enjoy paying them, but I see the point of them and mostly agree with what they're spent on. I agree we have some problems especially around unemployment benefits being a bit easy to receive, but not with the NHS giving aid to anyone who requires. And from now until I retire I will have no problem with my taxes funding healthcare equally available to everyone.

Two years part time, ok, then I have some time on you there as well.....


From each according to his means to each according to his needs.

Fcuk, so you're going to quote Karl Marx, real smart there, when you're trying to dismiss the idea of Socialised Medicine not being part of a bigger Communist idea....

[GlassHarp]

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2109-Health-Care-Arbitrage-Obama-And-The-Dems.html



Yes, I mean it.
And yes, I've read the Health Bill. Both the 2,000+ page original and The House changes as voted upon.

Here's the bottom line:

If you refuse to buy health insurance, you will be fined on a sliding scale that amounts to 2% of your AGI. So if you make $100,000 a year, you could be fined $2,000 for "refusing" to buy insurance.
You cannot buy a catastrophic policy any more. The "cheapest" acceptable policy will cost somewhere around $15,000 for a single person, and over $20,000 for a family. This is, for most people, more than five times the maximum possible fine - each and every year. The law makes it effectively impossible to maintain an existing catastrophic policy as they "renew" every year, and should any change be made you are then forced to buy something "acceptable" in the law (or pay the fine.)
When the "pre-existing condition" bar comes down you cannot be charged more or denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.


I fully expect 20-50% premium increases immediately, and for the next three years sequentially, in all existing policies. This is precisely what the banks did in front of the CARD act becoming effective, and it will happen here as well. That is the cause of the short-term rocket shot in the health-related stocks this morning.
In addition the capital gains tax changes will do severe damage to capital formation immediately, and these changes will become especially severe starting in 2014. The market will anticipate these changes and react accordingly, although you certainly wouldn't know it today.
Ok, this one's easy.
When the fines and pre-existing coverage "stop-out" go into effect (now for kids, in a couple of years for the rest) drop all coverage for those affected.
Why?

Because:

The fine is 1/5th or less the cost of the "insurance."
For routine care, you now can negotiate for your care before it is provided. It will be cheaper to do so than to buy the insurance - for routine events. Don't try to tell me it's not either - I've been carrying a catastrophic-only policy now for more than a decade, and as a consequence I've negotiated these fees and costs for routine things and saved tens of thousands compared to simply "buying a full-boat policy." The only reason for me to carry the "catastrophe" policy - the possibility of being screwed if I developed a serious condition and thus got excluded - has just been erased by this law, effective in a couple of years.
If you have a catastrophe of any form, buy the insurance at that point in time. You cannot be turned down or charged more.
Screw the government. They are the ones who set the standards - we simply have to live with them, and this is the only logical action to take given what they have just done.
Is there a risk in this strategy? Sure. You could have a "zero notice" catastrophe before you (or someone with a power of attorney) could buy a policy. So you have to be able to survive that sort of "short-term" event - but remember, you're going to be banking $10-20k per person during the time you're running "naked." So do exactly that - bank it for a year or two - so you have the ability to cover the instant expense from one of those "aw crap!" catastrophic circumstances. Fact is, they don't happen often and in a year or so you can have a very nice cushion against them.
Businesses will be dropping people like flies from business-covered "insurance"; there will be no reason for anyone as an employer to be providing this "benefit" into an environment where insurance prices will double - and probably double twice - in the next four years. If you think not, look at what was done to credit-card holders in front of the provisions of the CARD act going into effect.
This, by the way, will bankrupt the insurance companies in the end. Nobody will buy until they have HIV, Cancer or some other serious illness - then they will buy, and the companies will have to pay - with no lifetime caps or exclusions for pre-existing conditions.
The health care companies that are getting a rocket shot today in the stock market are being bought by fools.
If you have any belief whatsoever in the efficient market hypothesis this is exactly what people will do as the effective dates for these provisions approach, as it will save them ten thousand dollars a year or more - each. The insurance companies will instantaneously lose the "pool" of healthy people who buy against risk - rather, they will have a pool of all sick people who buy against known costs.
Forget it folks - this is the end of the health industry in America, and I will be looking for the recognition in the market (as expressed by technical analysis on the stocks in this sector) that the efficient market will come to the fore.
The intention of The Democrats (and liberals generally) in this legislation is clear and impossible to hide - they intend to completely destroy private health care in favor of a fully-government-run single-payer system. The efficient market guarantees this outcome given the law they passed, and they know it.
I cannot stop this idiocy but I can sure attempt to profit from it.
I am looking to establish the largest targeted short positions of my investing career if and when the technicals confirm that this obvious arbitrage is about to, or is, taking place.
This is one place where a fistful of PUTs can easily turn thousands into hundreds of thousands, and is an extremely-high probability play.


1234567898

[CG51]

I wonder what is the percentage of Americans that don't know anything that's actually in the bill? 80%, 90%?

[TraumaDoc]

1234567898
If you have actually read the bills then you are a true masochist, my hat is off to you.
Come to me for your medical care, or many like me, half off ,no insurance accepted, cash or equivalent only. It costs up about 60% of billings to do all the paperwork for the insurance. F**k them all. I'll give you the time you need and teach you what you need to know. I would rather have one patient who wants to care for himself than ten who ignore what I say and don't even get the prescriptions filled. Get a long term relationship with a good doctor, NOW. In a few years you may not be able to find one who has an opening and speaks english.

[Smitty_Damitty]

No it doesn't encroach on liberty or freedom tho it does encroach on sanity. Random drug testing for other than safety sensitive positions does encroach on liberty and freedom and should be stopped. The random testing of school students and ordinary employees is insane, not to mention stupid.

And please don't tell me about the horrible effects of drugs; i was the medical director of an addictive disease unit for 3 years and have been a medical review officer (MRO) since 1992. I may not have seen it all,but close. A better question: is the war on drugs having any effect? well I read that street prices are down and purity is up and the US is sending 20 Billion dollars a year to cartels in Columbia. If this is winning I don't want to see losing.
My primary point was that our government is very capable of extreme measures once it reaches crusade statis and I fear that healthy lifestyle is headed that way.
Incidently, more likely than the government putting pressure on you it will be your employer who will call you in(if you are obese, or have HBP,ect) and will suggest that your next employment review will rate your health highly significant because health costs are so draining to the company, and they will pay for you to attend this fat farm if you chose to use your vacation,ect.

How? How does random drug testing encroach on liberty and freedom? If I were randomly stopped on a city sidewalk or approached in my house and forced to submit to a urine test, well yeah, that would be pretty goddamned oppressive. But at a place of employment? It goes without saying that a bunch of stoned, coked up or tweaking employees, are bad for productivity. Not to mention that any job I've worked that administers random drug-testing, usually makes it known in a signed statement or in their respective employee handbooks. You know, that thing that many people choose not to read over throughly. Just as we have certain rights as citizens, businesses, love or hate them, have a right to maintain a preferred working environment, within current laws and regulations. RDT's are one of the methods some use, in order to maintain that environment. Last time I checked, no one is forced to work in a place where these tests are given.

Testing of students, on the other hand, I'll say that it depends on the school and its environment. I'll leave it at that. Truly random drug testing is an effective deterrent to drug usage, in a given environment. As one seated on the opposite side of that table, I say that with a degree of certainty.

OK doc, at no point, did I attempt to lecture you on illegal drugs and its effects. But, since we're dropping credentials, I was assigned to the ICU and the ER at the Naval Medical Center-San Diego, for 2+ yrs. We took in civilian patients from Balboa Park nightly, due to its proximity to the hospital.(15-20ft.) If my memory serves me correctly, every last one of the many patients brought in from the park, were drug cases. I was fortunate enough to do a month long rotation at the MLK Jr. hospital, before its closure in 2005. Drug OD's galore. Not to mention, the many members of my own family that have ruined their lives and have since passed, due to heroin addiction. I may not have seen it all, but close.

As for the War on Drugs, you'll never get a straight answer as to which way this "war", has or will go. But, allow me to answer your question, with a question. Now the situation is far from ideal but, are the streets of inner-city America anything comparable to the "Wild West" like killing fields of the late 80's/early-mid 90's? I think we can both agree that the War on Drugs has fallen far short of its aims but, the lack of 300, 400 and even 500 homicides per year, in major cities across the U.S., well you can certainly attribute that to the hardline taken against drugs during that time. What should we have done differently? And I'm sincerely asking, I wouldn't have the slightest idea.

As for the last part, all of that still sounds like hearsay. I have heard, nor seen any concrete movement in the direction of these "fat concentration camps", if you will. I'll leave it there, for now...

You can PM me if you want but, as far as this thread goes, I'm out.

[TraumaDoc]

I wonder what is the percentage of Americans that don't know anything that's actually in the bill? 80%, 90%?

I wonder what is the percentage of Representatives and Senators that don't know exactly what is in the bill? 80%, 90%?

[carolvs]

i wonder what is the percentage of representatives and senators that don't know exactly what is in the bill? 80%, 90%?

we have a winner!!!

[Flagg]

If you have actually read the bills then you are a true masochist, my hat is off to you.
Come to me for your medical care, or many like me, half off ,no insurance accepted, cash or equivalent only. It costs up about 60% of billings to do all the paperwork for the insurance. F**k them all. I'll give you the time you need and teach you what you need to know. I would rather have one patient who wants to care for himself than ten who ignore what I say and don't even get the prescriptions filled. Get a long term relationship with a good doctor, NOW. In a few years you may not be able to find one who has an opening and speaks english.

One scenario I kinda wondered might be worth experimenting with is a hybrid healthcare model.

Maintain a catastrophic cover insurance policy with a reasonably high, but achievable deductible and pair it with a direct paid "subscription" service to a private practice.

If you're single you pay X per month, if you're married you pay Y per month, if you've got kids you pay Z per month.

And for that you get the family doctor you want 24/7 until he/she retires.

The money goes straight to the practice with a hi/low balanced mix of doctors...hi in general practice, low in specialists, and maybe a bit of "code-sharing" subscription sharing for the less than day to day specialist medical consultations.

Run the backoffice of the practice like a franchise.......like McDonald's.......a common, constantly improving backoffice platform that is ruthlessly efficient.

Patients get the awesome doctor they want 24/7 for a reasonable monthly fee.

Doctors get a reasonable numbers of patients to devote themselves to while earning a good living without insurance company or uncle sam BS.

Open source franchise, back office commonality to reduce redundancy, increase efficiency, and drive down or contain costs.

Why does it have to be so difficult?

Isn't most medical care LOCAL....why can't we get a couple federally funded experimental models trialled first, drop the loser models, adopt the winners, getting it working well, then working really well...then replicate regionally, then nationally?

I'm guessing such an option becomes unviable going forward as that would make a family practice a defacto insurer via subscription?

[XShipRider]

Why does it have to be so difficult?

Isn't most medical care LOCAL....why can't we get a couple federally funded experimental models trialled first, drop the loser models, adopt the winners, getting it working well, then working really well...then replicate regionally, then nationally?

I'm guessing such an option becomes unviable going forward as that would make a family practice a defacto insurer via subscription?

Your overall idea has merit which means fat chance inside the beltway. I was with you until you mentioned "winners" and "losers." Congressional egos never admit to "losers" because they think given enough time everything they do will be a "winner." Solution: More funding.

But I do like your idea. Make people responsible for a goodly portion of their own healthcare rather than a third party (the current model).

One of the biggest obstacles to real change in the US is this idea that someone else is paying for (insert favorite program here). Until that paradigm is broken we won't have a pair of dimes.

[Kaplanr]

None of your (both you and Flagg) assumptions or propositions are unreasonable until we get to "Make people responsible for a goodly portion of their own healthcare..." I agree with it in principle, it's the practice that's hard, but not for lazy socialist, slacker reasons. My issue, which wasn't addressed at all in the bill, is the fluidity of medical math. Medical billing doesn't ever seem like it's based on any sane formula of fixed costs, recovering investment plus acceptable healthy markup. Is the real cost of a procedure the "retail" charge on the bill, or the adjusted charge? MY wonder is that rates for visits, medicines and procedures aren't set by 20 chimps in a room originally put there to produce the bible.


Your overall idea has merit which means fat chance inside the beltway. I was with you until you mentioned "winners" and "losers." Congressional egos never admit to "losers" because they think given enough time everything they do will be a "winner." Solution: More funding.

But I do like your idea. Make people responsible for a goodly portion of their own healthcare rather than a third party (the current model).

One of the biggest obstacles to real change in the US is this idea that someone else is paying for (insert favorite program here). Until that paradigm is broken we won't have a pair of dimes.

[Wimbly]

I wonder what is the percentage of Americans that don't know anything that's actually in the bill? 80%, 90%?

Obama didn't know what was int he bill a day before the vote.

[Wimbly]

When even an MSNBC poll shows wide spread satisfactions, there is a problem. Its simply amazing that the Democrats ignored the American people. Especially after video of Obama telling bush to give up on SS reform for the same reason.

http://politics.polls.newsvine.com/_question/2010/03/21/4048693-the-house-has-passed-an-historic-health-care-overhaul-are-you-excited-or-angry?GT1=430

At 6:32 CST on 3/22/2010, with 591,937 votes cast:

66.7% are ANGRY with the health care vote

26% are excited about healthcare reform

6.4% don't know how to feel

0.9% voted other

[TraumaDoc]

One scenario I kinda wondered might be worth experimenting with is a hybrid healthcare model.

Maintain a catastrophic cover insurance policy with a reasonably high, but achievable deductible and pair it with a direct paid "subscription" service to a private practice.

If you're single you pay X per month, if you're married you pay Y per month, if you've got kids you pay Z per month.

And for that you get the family doctor you want 24/7 until he/she retires.

The money goes straight to the practice with a hi/low balanced mix of doctors...hi in general practice, low in specialists, and maybe a bit of "code-sharing" subscription sharing for the less than day to day specialist medical consultations.

Run the backoffice of the practice like a franchise.......like McDonald's.......a common, constantly improving backoffice platform that is ruthlessly efficient.

Patients get the awesome doctor they want 24/7 for a reasonable monthly fee.

Doctors get a reasonable numbers of patients to devote themselves to while earning a good living without insurance company or uncle sam BS.

Open source franchise, back office commonality to reduce redundancy, increase efficiency, and drive down or contain costs.

Why does it have to be so difficult?

Isn't most medical care LOCAL....why can't we get a couple federally funded experimental models trialled first, drop the loser models, adopt the winners, getting it working well, then working really well...then replicate regionally, then nationally?

I'm guessing such an option becomes unviable going forward as that would make a family practice a defacto insurer via subscription?

Medical practices and clinics like you suggest are beginning to be started up here and there. The difficult part are the insurance company rules. Medicare and Medicaid both require you to accept their rate as full payment even tho those rates are below the cost of doing business. So to even break even the first thing you have to do is resign from Medicare and Medicaid. That eliminates a lot of patients.

Even Mayo Clinic, praised as a model by President Obama, is experimenting with not accepting Medicare or Medicaid assignment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101202803.html

[TraumaDoc]

My issue, which wasn't addressed at all in the bill, is the fluidity of medical math. Medical billing doesn't ever seem like it's based on any sane formula of fixed costs, recovering investment plus acceptable healthy markup. Is the real cost of a procedure the "retail" charge on the bill, or the adjusted charge? MY wonder is that rates for visits, medicines and procedures aren't set by 20 chimps in a room originally put there to produce the bible.

You are correct, it does seem like it was produced by 20 chimps. The way it works is, around 1990 the AMA established for Medicare the RVR system (relative value scale). Every billable code is assigned a weight, a routine office visit might be one RVR while a difficult surgical procedure might be 37 RVR. Then the RVR is multiplied by a number set by Medicare each year to set the payment rate for every service provided by doctors. This system is now used by all private companies also, just using a different multiplier.
It is a top-down system, established for budgetary reasons by the Federal Govt. It has nothing to do with cost or profit margins or anything resembling normal business practice.
Infighting between medical professional organizations has had one other bad result. E&M (Evaluation and Management) codes have been set very low. A primary care doctor does most of his billing with these. Procedurial codes for surgical procedures, heart cath, scopes, ect are set relatively high. This results in a specialtist doing procedures earning 2,3 or 5 times as much as a primary care doctor. This results in very few med school graduates choosing to go into primary care.

[I can't think of a name]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/23/flashback_obama_promises_public_5_days_to_view_bills_before_he_signs_them.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU&feature=player_embedded
Another Obama Lie

[CG51]

Well, it's the law of the land now.

[IDF_TANKER]

Well, it's the law of the land now.

That has been driving me crazy for a while now - what the name of this song(chick in the avatar), can you remind me??

[Yeti2424]

Well, it's the law of the land now.

Let the lawsuits begin...

[Jobu]

So here's your real-life impact of the bill today:

I'm going to end up laying off four employees this year because of the new insurance mandate. The "tax credit" we're supposed to receive would only account for roughly 30% of the cost of current premiums. If I waited until 2014 the "credit" would go up slightly, maybe 10% more. I'm looking at about $3.00 per employee hour to provide coverage right now. Can't afford it. The savings from the wages of those I have to cut will be enough to cover the rest going forward for a few years but if our rates go up (which I fully expect) I may have to let go of more.

Congratulations America.

[California Joe]

OK, Jobu just posted about his personal experience with his health care. How do the rest of you currently get yours and are you really all that satisfied, bang for your buck?

For the past 25 years or so I've been getting health insurance through the DOD. How it works is, every year during "open season" you get a big book of insurance plans, you look through them and pick the ones that best suit you and your family.

When my kids were little and required more office visits to the Dr. we had a certain insurance, now we have a high deductable but use a pre taxes Health Savings Account to make up forthe rest, like wisdom teeth extraction...school athletic physicals etc are mostly covered...

I don't understand why a simple bill that allows all Americans to buy insurance in bulk and pick and choose the plans just like I have done for 25 years wasn't implemented. Cause maybe the insurance companies didn't like that idea and it wasn't explained correctly as a "public option"?

Would you guys, especially small business owners, have a problem with being part of a giant pool that got better rates?

[Wimbly]

CJ, please explain the economics of how an unfair advantage over private insurance, mandated insurance to people and business who couldn't afford it to begin with and 9 trillion dollar bill on an already broke nation could possibly lower costs, or make people more free? If you've ever been through military socialized care, you know its nothing like living as a free individual. What makes you think this will be any different? I'm also wondering how you are able to articulate what the bill is, when Obama couldn't even do that the day before the vote.

[LineDoggie]

Let the lawsuits begin...13 states just filed Lawsuits for infringing on 10th Ammendment protections. I see this going to SCOTUS

[Jobu]

OK, Jobu just posted about his personal experience with his health care. How do the rest of you currently get yours and are you really all that satisfied, bang for your buck?

For the past 25 years or so I've been getting health insurance through the DOD. How it works is, every year during "open season" you get a big book of insurance plans, you look through them and pick the ones that best suit you and your family.

When my kids were little and required more office visits to the Dr. we had a certain insurance, now we have a high deductable but use a pre taxes Health Savings Account to make up forthe rest, like wisdom teeth extraction...school athletic physicals etc are mostly covered...

I don't understand why a simple bill that allows all Americans to buy insurance in bulk and pick and choose the plans just like I have done for 25 years wasn't implemented. Cause maybe the insurance companies didn't like that idea and it wasn't explained correctly as a "public option"?

Would you guys, especially small business owners, have a problem with being part of a giant pool that got better rates?

I'm already part of a fairly large pool. We put it together in late 2005. While our rates are better than they would have been individually we still pay higher premiums than the larger companies for a variety of reasons. First and foremost is that we have a higher risk profile. We are almost all manufacturing companies. You can imagine how many claims this means per year. We're all small businesses and certainly not "too big to fail" which means even in the good times every year at least one of us goes under and the group rate is therefore increased. Since 2008 we've lost 6 group members through bankruptcy. We also have workers who choose not to be part of the plan and buy their own insurance or go without, that also raises our rates.

Your DoD plans are very different. It's a stable, low risk membership. Companies will line up to offer you better deals because they otherwise wouldn't have access to your large pool of coverage recipients. You're very attractive customers, we are not.

[Geezah]

13 states just filed Lawsuits for infringing on 10th Ammendment protections. I see this going to SCOTUS

And as mentioned by Rush yesterday the Justices are probably chomping at the bit for this one. After all, it's probably not bright to publicly chastise the Supreme Court.......

[Policía Loco]

How do the rest of you currently get yours and are you really all that satisfied, bang for your buck?



Well, with my plan, I pay about $30/month. That's medical, dental, and eye care. Out of my pocket I pay at minimum $20/year for an annual medical checkup. Plus $20 co-pay for each visit/procedure I have ever had done in addition to the routine checkup, which is rare. Eye care, I had LASIK, which was covered, and my yearly exams since then have been fully covered. With dental, I get dental care done at a dental school via their student practice. Its done by their last year students under supervision from professors evaluating ever step of the procedures that they do. It is paid out of pocket but at about a third of what a private practice dentist charges. I just file it with my insurance afterwards and they reimburse me. I am allowed $1,500 worth of dental work a year. Due to what I get charged, that is increased to at least $4,500 worth of work a year. There is no way I could need that much work. I also live in an area with some of the top medical professionals/institutions in the nation. So, with me personally, I think I am doing good and don't want it to change.

Also, with plenty of family members, and those of friends and co-workers, working in the medical field most of the prescriptions I have ever needed were given free as samples.

[Kaplanr]

From a real perspective, my chances for hypertension and stress related illness was just substantially reduced. I have a 16 year old, who's cognitively 3-6 months with a seizure disorder (on top of not walking or talking.) His needs are either covered by my insurance or state/county Medical Assistance. In all likelihood he wouldn't be cut because of the level of his disabilities, but it is comforting to know that's backed up by law now. If I would have had to switch jobs or move in the last 16 years, would he be considered a pre-existing condition? Going back to my earlier post; he's on 6 medications some of whose retail costs are measured in the hundreds of dollars - we pay 35.00 or 50.00 for the co-pay. I have no idea if those are real prices or pulled-out-of-sales-department's-ass prices.

Bottom line is, myself, my wife, and daughter aren't enough of a pool to offset his costs. Why they didn't adopt the idea of state-wide or regional pools is beyond me, but I supported the bill.

Just checked, I pay $180 a month and that's not with dental or vision.

[California Joe]

Wimbly, I'm not articulating what the bill actually is, I have no frigging idea what this monstrosity entails, I'm just saying that from personal experience that my version of reform, reflecting my experience getting good insurance and the chance to choose what works best for me and my family, through a large pool of applicants should have been the way forward instead of what we will end up with.

Jobu, I get it and I understand the added risk in the actuarial tables but wouldn't a larger pool end up with you getting better rates? By the way, my experience with the DOD plans also included a whole lot of explosives workers, people who got hazard pay for their work with black powder, explosive compounds and propellants...all part of the same group...

[Jobu]

Wimbly, I'm not articulating what the bill actually is, I have no frigging idea what this monstrosity entails, I'm just saying that from personal experience that my version of reform, reflecting my experience getting good insurance and the chance to choose what works best for me and my family, through a large pool of applicants should have been the way forward instead of what we will end up with.

Jobu, I get it and I understand the added risk in the actuarial tables but wouldn't a larger pool end up with you getting better rates? By the way, my experience with the DOD plans also included a whole lot of explosives workers, people who got hazard pay for their work with black powder, explosive compounds and propellants...all part of the same group...

I obviously don't know all the details of your DoD plans and I won't pretend to but even if there were some members with higher risk coefficients, they're still part of a much more stable pool which these companies would otherwise not have such access to. Nor are the DoD plan members in danger of going bankrupt (I assume.)

Would a larger pool help lower my rates? Maybe, but it's very difficult to do. There is very little cohesion among large groups, we have members constantly looking outside for better deals and have workers who opt out. It's not a labor union. Every member is looking for ways to help his business by cutting costs and we even have market competitors in the same group. If Widget company A can find what he believes will give him a better deal than Widget company B, he will leave the group to gain that advantage.

And frankly, there's simply no way to reduce rates right now.

No annual and lifetime benefits limit means higher premiums.
No rescissions means higher premiums.
Free preventative care means higher premiums.
Extending coverage until 26 years old on parent's plans means higher premiums.
No pre-existing conditions means higher premiums.
and so on and so forth.

No pool is large enough to stop it.

[California Joe]

So bottom line is, people are living too long these days and insurance companies are f*cking us whenever possible and paying Congress to look the other way.

[Jobu]

So bottom line is, people are living too long these days and insurance companies are f*cking us whenever possible and paying Congress to look the other way.

I don't see it this way.
I think the insurance companies are screwed. Their costs just went WAY up and they will not see a significant increase in premium payers to offset it. The young and uninsured will not go pay for new plans, they'll be on their parents' plans until 26. The newly unemployed who lose their jobs because of this employer mandate will end up on Medicaid, not on a private plan.

This bill was designed to drive the insurance companies out of business and push millions onto Medicaid. It's the backdoor process toward a socialist, entirely government-run healthcare system.

[Policía Loco]

So bottom line is, people are living too long these days and insurance companies are f*cking us whenever possible and paying Congress to look the other way.


A gamblin' man is in it to win it, right?

[Yeti2424]

Wimbly, I'm not articulating what the bill actually is, I have no frigging idea what this monstrosity entails, I'm just saying that from personal experience that my version of reform, reflecting my experience getting good insurance and the chance to choose what works best for me and my family, through a large pool of applicants should have been the way forward instead of what we will end up with.

Jobu, I get it and I understand the added risk in the actuarial tables but wouldn't a larger pool end up with you getting better rates? By the way, my experience with the DOD plans also included a whole lot of explosives workers, people who got hazard pay for their work with black powder, explosive compounds and propellants...all part of the same group...

My wife and I were in a “large pool” insured through my company. Unfortunately the company that I work for is mostly older people and the only insurance options were low deducible, prescription card, low co-pay plans. My wife and I (Late 20’s) go to the doctor maybe 3 times a year. The coverage was great but we were rarely using it which resulted in my employer and I pissing away about $1400/month. Luckily I have the option to opt out of the company plan and take what they were spending on insuring me as an increase in pay. We shopped around and found coverage for the two of us that had a high deductible ($2500/person) with an HSA account. We decided to pay a little extra a month to guarantee our initial rate for 5 years. As of now we pay about $400/month in insurance costs and each put about $100/month in each of our tax deferred HSA accounts. We have never reached our annual deductible and pay for the random doctor’s visits and prescriptions out of the HSA accounts.

[Cstafford]

don't know where u live, but we already do get fined here for not having car insurance. old news

You go ahead and tell me how that argument is justifiable..

[[ KOOSHAB ]]

Finally, now all we need to do now is shift from commercial media to mixed media and I will be content.

[TraumaDoc]

So bottom line is, people are living too long these days and insurance companies are f*cking us whenever possible and paying Congress to look the other way.

Good summation.

[CG51]

I don't see it this way.
I think the insurance companies are screwed. Their costs just went WAY up and they will not see a significant increase in premium payers to offset it. The young and uninsured will not go pay for new plans, they'll be on their parents' plans until 26. The newly unemployed who lose their jobs because of this employer mandate will end up on Medicaid, not on a private plan.

This bill was designed to drive the insurance companies out of business and push millions onto Medicaid. It's the backdoor process toward a socialist, entirely government-run healthcare system.

What about single people not that are not living with parents, over 26, with no employment. Where do they fall? (it's more than a handful) Medicaid does not cover single people unless found disabled by a doctor. Single women if pregnant can receive Medicaid.

[Kant]

That has been driving me crazy for a while now - what the name of this song(chick in the avatar), can you remind me??

It's "destination unkown"-I think it's Benny Benassi

[RomanS]

How is forcing people to do some thing against their will great news? maybe if you're a facist or communist maybe, but a decent human being would stand four square against this.

Communists and Facists - thats the 2 groups I think of right away when I hear HEALTH CARE :)

[CG51]

President Obama is promising his health care plan will salve many ills -- but so far, there's no cure for Vice President Biden's gaffes.

At a bill signing ceremony for the measure in the East Room, Biden introduced Obama then shook the president's hand and whispered in his ear, "This is a big (expletive) deal."

Problem was, the microphone was on. "Biden drops the F-bomb," CNN declared.

Obama, unsmiling, took the podium after Biden and opened his remarks with, "Thank you, Joe."

The president at times has appeared uptight or uncomfortable around his cheery and decidedly more casual vice president -- much in the manner of a college senior around an unpredictable relative at a celebratory brunch.

Where Obama is serious and at times appears humor-challenged, Biden dearly loves a laugh. Obama is singular and not a backslapper, and is sometimes photographed looking ill at ease with Biden's arm draped around him.

But this time, the White House communications strategy was to defuse Biden's F-bomb with a breezy assent.

"And yes, Mr. Vice President, you're right," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs declared on Twitter.

Biden's remark, relayed instantly across cable and the Internet, was at most a minor asterisk to the administration's health care victory lap.

But Biden's long history of speaking uncomfortable truths has vexed the White House from the start -- and even before.

Sizing up former rival Obama for the presidential nomination, Biden in 2007 described his future boss as "articulate and bright and clean."

After the White House urged Americans not to panic over swine flu, Biden went on television to say he would tell family members to avoid confined spaces and public transportation.

He told ABC News' "This Week" in 2009 that the administration had "misread how bad the economy was," also a deviation from the White House talking points.

Biden went on CBS News' "Early Show" to promote a new White House Web site tracking stimulus spending, but was unable to recall the address.

He referred in a speech to longtime colleague Sen. John McCain of Arizona as "George" and won a stern look of rebuke from Obama for making fun of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts at a White House event.

Campaigning in Missouri in 2008, Biden called on a local state senator, confined to a wheelchair, to stand up and be recognized.

"Oh, God love ya," Biden said, acknowledging the error. "What am I talking about?"

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Biden_-Obamacare-is-a-_big-f___ing-deal_-88962627.html#ixzz0j3Yl3kp9

[TraumaDoc]

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Biden_-Obamacare-is-a-_big-f___ing-deal_-88962627.html#ixzz0j3Yl3kp9


Every king needs a royal clown and Biden fits the role so well.

[Kaplanr]

I can only imagine Cheney and Rumsfeld's vocabulary.

[Cstafford]

I can only imagine Cheney and Rumsfeld's vocabulary.
"This health care bill... its just a bunch of malarkey!"

[Arsenal]

Looks like the people responsible for writing the bill, will be exempted from having to actually live under it. Who would have thunk it?


One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carve out for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/23/opinion/main6324480.shtml

[Jobu]

What about single people not that are not living with parents, over 26, with no employment. Where do they fall? (it's more than a handful) Medicaid does not cover single people unless found disabled by a doctor. Single women if pregnant can receive Medicaid.

It does now.
Obamacare boosted the eligibility levels.

This is one of the reasons why several states are suing the federal government. States pay for medicaid and the millions of new recipients will drive their budgets further into the red. Another unfunded mandate.

[SBL]

It does now.
Obamacare boosted the eligibility levels.

This is one of the reasons why several states are suing the federal government. States pay for medicaid and the millions of new recipients will drive their budgets further into the red. Another unfunded mandate.
Charles Krauthammer is predicting a VAT tax will be introduced, come November.

[Jobu]

Charles Krauthammer is predicting a VAT tax will be introduced, come November.

A large portion of the American people are already very angry, I fear such a move would likely push some over the edge and lead to violence against politicians.

[Kaplanr]

Drop the income tax and I'll happily pay a VAT.

[TraumaDoc]

Drop the income tax and I'll happily pay a VAT.

Taxes, once enacted are almost never repealed. We will get the benefit of both taxes.

[CG51]

^^ What benefit?

VAT is basically a second sales tax? The future looks bright indeed.

[LineDoggie]

Looks like the people responsible for writing the bill, will be exempted from having to actually live under it. Who would have thunk it?



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/23/opinion/main6324480.shtml

C'mon now, remember your Animal Farm

Some Pigs are more equal than others......

And Piglosi Can't have her senior staff waiting like peasants with their Medical Ration cards in the queue

[TraumaDoc]

^^ What benefit?

VAT is basically a second sales tax? The future looks bright indeed.

LOL the benefit of higher taxes of course. Now it takes most of the US middle class until early May to pay off all the taxes and fees , Federal, state and local. I think the politicians want to try for a July date now.

[leloup46]

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/B/J/3/obama-package-headline.jpg

the real reason for Republican anger (unknown source)

[BlackHigh]

congratulation to the usa, you are now 1 step closer to europe but still 2 steps behind xD