Does ANYONE Have A Factual Opinion On Health Care?
There appears to be some real brouhaha surrounding the current health care bill.
I'm laughing. I have to. People on this web site have taken a stand when the bill, even though some form has passed the Senate, still isn't ironed out and will very likely undergo significant changes still. So while everyone's getting themselves into a huff over what really is the most significant social legislation in my lifetime, I decided to look for cooler heads and accurate opinions regarding the reality of the bill. That means accessing mainstream media web sites because, in cases like this, they have the truth. I don't like phrases like 'death panels' because they're inaccurate and misleading. I didn't yet find anything on that subject anyway.
WASHINGTON — Now that the Senate has passed a hotly debated health care bill, Congress is headed to the next step: House of Representatives-Senate negotiations in January to hammer out a final version. Given the Senate's difficulty in passing a bill, the final legislation is likely to tilt strongly toward that chamber's version. Here's where things stand and how you might be affected.
Q: What are the biggest disputes?
A: There are scores of disagreements, but the biggest battles will come over how the legislation would be paid for, whether to include a government-run insurance plan and how much to spend on subsidies to help lower- and middle-income Americans afford insurance.
Abortion remains perhaps the thorniest issue. (I just want to say that THEY like to keep us divided on the abortion issue because THEY like to keep us divided in any way THEY can and abortion works well) The Senate bill would allow insurance plans that operate in newly created exchanges, or marketplaces, to offer abortion coverage, but enrollees would have to write separate checks for it. The House bill has even tighter language: Insurers in the exchanges that accept federal subsidies — which is likely to be most if not all of them — couldn't provide abortion coverage at all.
OK, well, abortion doesn't effect me one way or another, so, next...
Q: I don't have health insurance. Would I have to get it, and what happens if I don't?
A: Under both bills, most Americans would be required to have coverage or to pay a penalty. Some would be exempted from the requirement, called an individual mandate, due to financial hardship or religious reasons. Under the House bill, you'd have to have coverage by 2013 or pay up to 2.5 percent of your income; the penalty couldn't exceed the average cost of a plan sold in the exchanges.
The Senate version would take effect in 2014. The penalty for not having coverage would be $95 in 2014 or 0.5 percent of an individual's income, whichever is higher. The penalty would rise in 2016 to $750, or 2 percent of income, up to the cost of the cheapest health plan.
OK, so that won't effect me either. I have no income and my insurance will remain much the same; Medica provided by the state of Minnesota, which is GREAT insurance. There's a financial hardship exclusion and a religious exclusion. That sounds pretty fair. You HAVE to buy insurance otherwise. Not a great plan but not terrible either. You have to wear seat belts or pay a fine. You need a drivers license to drive, and insurance, or you pay a BIG fine. There doesn't seem to me to be anything really wrong with requiring health insurance.
Q: I'm over 65. How would the legislation affect seniors?
A: The Medicare prescription-drug benefit would be improved substantially under both bills, though only the House bill would eliminate the sizable coverage gap called the "doughnut hole" by 2019. Both bills would enable most seniors to get half-price brand-name drugs when they hit the gap. The final bill to emerge from conference might favor the more generous House approach.
Under both bills, government payments to Medicare Advantage, the private-plan part of Medicare, would be cut back. If you're one of the 10 million beneficiaries whom those private plans cover, you could lose extra benefits that many of the plans offer, such as free eyeglasses, hearing aids and gym memberships.
Both bills would make all Medicare preventive services, such as screenings for colon, prostate and breast cancer, free to beneficiaries.
This sounds good to me and there's no reason to cover gym memberships if you ask me. Want a gym membership? Pay for it. Need a hearing aid or glasses? Cough up a few bucks.
Q: I want health coverage, but can't afford it. How would the legislation affect me?
A: Both bills would expand Medicaid, the state-federal program for poor people and those with disabilities, to include millions of people, including childless adults, who aren't generally eligible. Under the House bill, individuals with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level, or $16,245, would be eligible for Medicaid. Under the Senate bill, eligibility would reach 133 percent of poverty, or $14,404 for individuals.
Even if you make too much for Medicaid, you could get help buying private insurance in the new marketplaces, called exchanges. Both bills would provide billions of dollars for subsidies once premiums exceed a certain percentage of annual income. The House bill is more generous than the Senate's is if your income is on the lower end; the Senate is more generous for those on the higher end. The subsidies end at four times the poverty level, $88,200 for a family of four.
Even if you make too much to qualify for subsidies, you could get some financial relief. Both bills would require your insurer to pick up your out-of-pocket costs — such as coinsurance, the portion of the bills that you pay — once they exceed a certain amount. The House limits are up to $5,000 a year for an individual and $10,000 for a family; the Senate's are slightly higher. Many people who are eligible for subsidies would pay less out of pocket.
If you work for a company, however, you may not have to buy your insurance directly, because both the House and the Senate place new responsibilities on employers, and in some cases offer them financial incentives to begin offering insurance.
The House's subsidies would cost about $93 billion in 2016; the Senate's $55 billion. Though House members want the Senate to cough up more for subsidies, it may be tough.
This all sounds pretty fantastic to me. I can't find anything here to complain about at all.
Q: How much is all this going to cost? Will it increase my taxes?
A: The House-passed bill is estimated to cost $1 trillion over a decade, the Senate bill $871 billion. The final measure probably will be closer to the Senate bill. President Barack Obama has said he'd like the cost kept below $900 billion.
Both bills hit up the wealthy, but in different ways. The House would impose a 5.4 percent income tax surtax on individuals who earn more than $500,000 a year and couples that earn more than $1 million. The Senate would increase the Medicare payroll tax rate from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for people who earn more than $200,000 a year and families that earn more than $250,000.
To raise money to pay for the legislation, the Senate would impose a 40 percent tax on the portion of most employer-sponsored health coverage that exceeds $8,500 a year for individuals and $23,000 for families. The Senate also would raise the threshold for deducting medical expenses to 10 percent of income, up from 7.5 percent.
Both the House and Senate would place new fees on the medical device industry, and would limit to $2,500 a year the amount you could place in flexible savings accounts.
Overall, the financing provisions could spur a pitched battle; the House hates the Senate tax on high-cost policies, while the Senate opposes the House's income-tax surcharge.
This all sounds pretty cool to me also. Nothing here that I could possibly complain about. Taxing the wealthy to pay for the less wealthy to be covered with health insurance, to me, is the way to go.
Q: How would the legislation affect the kind of insurance I can buy? Would it make it easier for me to get coverage, even if I have health problems?
A: If you have a medical condition, both bills would make it easier for you to get coverage; insurers would be barred from rejecting applicants based on health status once the exchanges are operating, in 2013 in the House bill and 2014 in the Senate version.
In the meantime, both bills would create a temporary high-risk pool for people who've been rejected for coverage or have pre-existing medical conditions. Both bills also would bar insurers from retroactively canceling the policies of individuals who fall ill with costly conditions.
Under the bills, the exchanges initially would be open only to individuals who buy their own insurance and to certain small businesses. New policies sold on an exchange would have to cover a range of benefits, including hospitalization, doctor visits, prescription drugs, maternity care and certain preventive tests. Both bills say insurers couldn't set lifetime coverage limits; the Senate also restricts annual limits. Those who want to keep their existing policies — even if they don't meet the new standards — generally could do so.
OK, well, this sounds great too. I can't complain about this either.
Q: I buy my own insurance. How would the legislation affect how much I pay?
A: Because insurers wouldn't be permitted to charge sick people more, their premiums might initially cost less compared with what they'd pay under current law. Younger, healthier people might pay more. Also, under the House bill, older people could be charged only two times more than younger people; in the Senate, older people could be charged up to three times more.
Well, I'm not really fond of this but I'll have to see what we end up with.
Q: I understand that the public option isn't in the Senate bill. Is Congress still likely to approve it? If not, what's the alternative?
A: The Senate is unlikely to accept the government-run "public option" health insurance measure in the House bill. Instead, Senate Democrats would create large, privately run, multi-state insurance plans and have the federal Office of Personnel Management administer them. Every exchange would offer at least two such plans, one of which must be nonprofit. The final deal is expected to include this Senate provision.
Q: I own a small business. Would I have to buy insurance for my workers? What help could I get?
A: Both the House and Senate bills would exempt small businesses from having to provide coverage, and would provide tax credits for some small firms. Your firm's bottom line is more likely to benefit from the Senate version.
The Senate would exempt companies with fewer than 50 workers from having to offer insurance. The House excuses companies with annual payrolls of less than $500,000; firms that are bigger would pay a fee equivalent to a portion of their payroll costs if they don't offer insurance. That payment would rise to 8 percent of payroll for the largest firms.
If your firm has no more than 25 employees, it might be eligible for tax credits as high as 50 percent of premium costs under both bills. The full credits are for the smallest firms with low-wage workers; they shrink as the size of your company and your work force's earnings rise.
The House tax credits are available only if your employees' average wages don't exceed $40,000 a year, while the Senate allows firms with average wages of up to $50,000 to qualify. The House's tax credits aren't available to employers for workers who earn more than $80,000 a year.
This all sounds pretty good to me too.
Now I'm not saying this health care bill is good. What I'm saying is that NO ONE HERE has provided any factual data proving that it's bad.
Soooo, what's everyone complaining about?
Can anyone provide factual data that describes your complaint?
Can you?
Huh?
It REALLY pisses me off to see someone publish a post that says, "H.R. 3962 PASSES!! GRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!" and then get a group of comments that support that position and THAT POSITION IS NOT SUPPORTED WITH ANY FACTUAL DATA. What absolute bull shit, if you ask me. Soooo, here's your chance. Provide some factual data, right here. I'll be standing by. I'm not holding my breath though.
I'm laughing. I have to. People on this web site have taken a stand when the bill, even though some form has passed the Senate, still isn't ironed out and will very likely undergo significant changes still. So while everyone's getting themselves into a huff over what really is the most significant social legislation in my lifetime, I decided to look for cooler heads and accurate opinions regarding the reality of the bill. That means accessing mainstream media web sites because, in cases like this, they have the truth. I don't like phrases like 'death panels' because they're inaccurate and misleading. I didn't yet find anything on that subject anyway.
WASHINGTON — Now that the Senate has passed a hotly debated health care bill, Congress is headed to the next step: House of Representatives-Senate negotiations in January to hammer out a final version. Given the Senate's difficulty in passing a bill, the final legislation is likely to tilt strongly toward that chamber's version. Here's where things stand and how you might be affected.
Q: What are the biggest disputes?
A: There are scores of disagreements, but the biggest battles will come over how the legislation would be paid for, whether to include a government-run insurance plan and how much to spend on subsidies to help lower- and middle-income Americans afford insurance.
Abortion remains perhaps the thorniest issue. (I just want to say that THEY like to keep us divided on the abortion issue because THEY like to keep us divided in any way THEY can and abortion works well) The Senate bill would allow insurance plans that operate in newly created exchanges, or marketplaces, to offer abortion coverage, but enrollees would have to write separate checks for it. The House bill has even tighter language: Insurers in the exchanges that accept federal subsidies — which is likely to be most if not all of them — couldn't provide abortion coverage at all.
OK, well, abortion doesn't effect me one way or another, so, next...
Q: I don't have health insurance. Would I have to get it, and what happens if I don't?
A: Under both bills, most Americans would be required to have coverage or to pay a penalty. Some would be exempted from the requirement, called an individual mandate, due to financial hardship or religious reasons. Under the House bill, you'd have to have coverage by 2013 or pay up to 2.5 percent of your income; the penalty couldn't exceed the average cost of a plan sold in the exchanges.
The Senate version would take effect in 2014. The penalty for not having coverage would be $95 in 2014 or 0.5 percent of an individual's income, whichever is higher. The penalty would rise in 2016 to $750, or 2 percent of income, up to the cost of the cheapest health plan.
OK, so that won't effect me either. I have no income and my insurance will remain much the same; Medica provided by the state of Minnesota, which is GREAT insurance. There's a financial hardship exclusion and a religious exclusion. That sounds pretty fair. You HAVE to buy insurance otherwise. Not a great plan but not terrible either. You have to wear seat belts or pay a fine. You need a drivers license to drive, and insurance, or you pay a BIG fine. There doesn't seem to me to be anything really wrong with requiring health insurance.
Q: I'm over 65. How would the legislation affect seniors?
A: The Medicare prescription-drug benefit would be improved substantially under both bills, though only the House bill would eliminate the sizable coverage gap called the "doughnut hole" by 2019. Both bills would enable most seniors to get half-price brand-name drugs when they hit the gap. The final bill to emerge from conference might favor the more generous House approach.
Under both bills, government payments to Medicare Advantage, the private-plan part of Medicare, would be cut back. If you're one of the 10 million beneficiaries whom those private plans cover, you could lose extra benefits that many of the plans offer, such as free eyeglasses, hearing aids and gym memberships.
Both bills would make all Medicare preventive services, such as screenings for colon, prostate and breast cancer, free to beneficiaries.
This sounds good to me and there's no reason to cover gym memberships if you ask me. Want a gym membership? Pay for it. Need a hearing aid or glasses? Cough up a few bucks.
Q: I want health coverage, but can't afford it. How would the legislation affect me?
A: Both bills would expand Medicaid, the state-federal program for poor people and those with disabilities, to include millions of people, including childless adults, who aren't generally eligible. Under the House bill, individuals with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level, or $16,245, would be eligible for Medicaid. Under the Senate bill, eligibility would reach 133 percent of poverty, or $14,404 for individuals.
Even if you make too much for Medicaid, you could get help buying private insurance in the new marketplaces, called exchanges. Both bills would provide billions of dollars for subsidies once premiums exceed a certain percentage of annual income. The House bill is more generous than the Senate's is if your income is on the lower end; the Senate is more generous for those on the higher end. The subsidies end at four times the poverty level, $88,200 for a family of four.
Even if you make too much to qualify for subsidies, you could get some financial relief. Both bills would require your insurer to pick up your out-of-pocket costs — such as coinsurance, the portion of the bills that you pay — once they exceed a certain amount. The House limits are up to $5,000 a year for an individual and $10,000 for a family; the Senate's are slightly higher. Many people who are eligible for subsidies would pay less out of pocket.
If you work for a company, however, you may not have to buy your insurance directly, because both the House and the Senate place new responsibilities on employers, and in some cases offer them financial incentives to begin offering insurance.
The House's subsidies would cost about $93 billion in 2016; the Senate's $55 billion. Though House members want the Senate to cough up more for subsidies, it may be tough.
This all sounds pretty fantastic to me. I can't find anything here to complain about at all.
Q: How much is all this going to cost? Will it increase my taxes?
A: The House-passed bill is estimated to cost $1 trillion over a decade, the Senate bill $871 billion. The final measure probably will be closer to the Senate bill. President Barack Obama has said he'd like the cost kept below $900 billion.
Both bills hit up the wealthy, but in different ways. The House would impose a 5.4 percent income tax surtax on individuals who earn more than $500,000 a year and couples that earn more than $1 million. The Senate would increase the Medicare payroll tax rate from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for people who earn more than $200,000 a year and families that earn more than $250,000.
To raise money to pay for the legislation, the Senate would impose a 40 percent tax on the portion of most employer-sponsored health coverage that exceeds $8,500 a year for individuals and $23,000 for families. The Senate also would raise the threshold for deducting medical expenses to 10 percent of income, up from 7.5 percent.
Both the House and Senate would place new fees on the medical device industry, and would limit to $2,500 a year the amount you could place in flexible savings accounts.
Overall, the financing provisions could spur a pitched battle; the House hates the Senate tax on high-cost policies, while the Senate opposes the House's income-tax surcharge.
This all sounds pretty cool to me also. Nothing here that I could possibly complain about. Taxing the wealthy to pay for the less wealthy to be covered with health insurance, to me, is the way to go.
Q: How would the legislation affect the kind of insurance I can buy? Would it make it easier for me to get coverage, even if I have health problems?
A: If you have a medical condition, both bills would make it easier for you to get coverage; insurers would be barred from rejecting applicants based on health status once the exchanges are operating, in 2013 in the House bill and 2014 in the Senate version.
In the meantime, both bills would create a temporary high-risk pool for people who've been rejected for coverage or have pre-existing medical conditions. Both bills also would bar insurers from retroactively canceling the policies of individuals who fall ill with costly conditions.
Under the bills, the exchanges initially would be open only to individuals who buy their own insurance and to certain small businesses. New policies sold on an exchange would have to cover a range of benefits, including hospitalization, doctor visits, prescription drugs, maternity care and certain preventive tests. Both bills say insurers couldn't set lifetime coverage limits; the Senate also restricts annual limits. Those who want to keep their existing policies — even if they don't meet the new standards — generally could do so.
OK, well, this sounds great too. I can't complain about this either.
Q: I buy my own insurance. How would the legislation affect how much I pay?
A: Because insurers wouldn't be permitted to charge sick people more, their premiums might initially cost less compared with what they'd pay under current law. Younger, healthier people might pay more. Also, under the House bill, older people could be charged only two times more than younger people; in the Senate, older people could be charged up to three times more.
Well, I'm not really fond of this but I'll have to see what we end up with.
Q: I understand that the public option isn't in the Senate bill. Is Congress still likely to approve it? If not, what's the alternative?
A: The Senate is unlikely to accept the government-run "public option" health insurance measure in the House bill. Instead, Senate Democrats would create large, privately run, multi-state insurance plans and have the federal Office of Personnel Management administer them. Every exchange would offer at least two such plans, one of which must be nonprofit. The final deal is expected to include this Senate provision.
Q: I own a small business. Would I have to buy insurance for my workers? What help could I get?
A: Both the House and Senate bills would exempt small businesses from having to provide coverage, and would provide tax credits for some small firms. Your firm's bottom line is more likely to benefit from the Senate version.
The Senate would exempt companies with fewer than 50 workers from having to offer insurance. The House excuses companies with annual payrolls of less than $500,000; firms that are bigger would pay a fee equivalent to a portion of their payroll costs if they don't offer insurance. That payment would rise to 8 percent of payroll for the largest firms.
If your firm has no more than 25 employees, it might be eligible for tax credits as high as 50 percent of premium costs under both bills. The full credits are for the smallest firms with low-wage workers; they shrink as the size of your company and your work force's earnings rise.
The House tax credits are available only if your employees' average wages don't exceed $40,000 a year, while the Senate allows firms with average wages of up to $50,000 to qualify. The House's tax credits aren't available to employers for workers who earn more than $80,000 a year.
This all sounds pretty good to me too.
Now I'm not saying this health care bill is good. What I'm saying is that NO ONE HERE has provided any factual data proving that it's bad.
Soooo, what's everyone complaining about?
Can anyone provide factual data that describes your complaint?
Can you?
Huh?
It REALLY pisses me off to see someone publish a post that says, "H.R. 3962 PASSES!! GRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!" and then get a group of comments that support that position and THAT POSITION IS NOT SUPPORTED WITH ANY FACTUAL DATA. What absolute bull shit, if you ask me. Soooo, here's your chance. Provide some factual data, right here. I'll be standing by. I'm not holding my breath though.
Comment
-
Comment by Jeff on December 25, 2009 at 5:34pm
-
My search turns up conflicting results. Perhaps motorcycle insurance isn't mandatory. Interesting that that's the case.
-
-
I didn't do a thorough internet search but it does appear that motorcycle insurance is mandatory in Washington. It doesn't make much sense that car insurance would be mandatory and motorcycle insurance would be voluntary.
-
-
Marklar, interesting to me that motorcycle insurance is not mandatory and car insurance is. Where do you live?
I lived in Mexico for 2 years and liked it far more than here. Of course there I paid very little attention to detail and also lived as an illegal alien.
Yeah Greg, the real problem is health insurance vs. health care and the problem with this bill is waiting several years to see how it all actually pans out since none of us will read it and if we do understanding it then becomes the next problem after reading it.
-
Comment by Marklar on December 25, 2009 at 12:00pm
-
Oh, and Merry Christmas BTW.
-
-
Actually Jeff I have none of those forms of insurance or any insurance for that matter. Not one. I quit driving cars the day they notified my that insurance was now mandatory and started driving motorcycles which were exempt from that requirement.
While I justify NONE of the things you mention the difference is that I can avoid any or all of those expenses if I so choose, and I do. When it comes to healthcare however they are demanding I pay for health care insurance merely because I exist and they say so. There is no out whatsoever. See the difference? I can choose not to drive or to leave my home uninsured (if I had one), I cannot choose to not exist quite so easily.
I will not leave the US over the healthcare bill, that's rediculous. I may however leave because there is simply no future here for anyone except for a slow slide into desperate poverty and totalitarianism (best case scenario) in my opinion. The point was that the US makes exiting the US permanently quite difficult at times and I may need to pay their illegal fines in order to do so without undue harassment and legal problems. In other words I am willing to pay the bribes necessary if I should find myself in a position to be able to make my exit, just as I would need to do in any other 3rd world shit hole run by a criminal cartel.
-
-
Car insurance works much the same way Greg.
Here's the real deal.
The powers that be transformed a care issue into an insurance issue.
No one needs health insurance.
Everyone needs health care.
That's our society. Upside down, inside out and backwards.
I had my truck totaled by a guy without insurance and I was stuck because I didn't have auto insurance either. I never have had auto insurance. Even with the new cars I purchased. The dealer sends letters but they don't push the issue.
I've also never had medical insurance that I've had to pay for.
I've used emergency rooms all of my life for everything and I've never paid the bills.
I am a rebel and I take advantage of the system every chance I get. If the haves pay for my methods, so be it.
Now I'm old and have no income and have state medical insurance. None of the issues effect me. However, making a judgment about the current health care insurance debate without knowing the facts isn't wise.
The bill will be effective for some and ineffective for others. The real issue is obfuscated. People need health care not health insurance.
-
Comment by I811st on December 25, 2009 at 10:05am
-
I've been driving freely ,without a drivers license for the last 6 years. I do have a registered vehicle and in order to have that , Insurance. A Driver's License is about as Important in life as a high school diploma,having one Does not make you a better Driver. Just like Having a High school diploma Is no proof that youre not stupid.
-
-
You know Greg, drivers licenses bother me more than health insurance.
So do hunting and fishing licenses, gun registration, car insurance, tolls on the highways, sales tax and a host of other things bother me far more than mandatory health insurance.
-
-
Yeah, well, we all justify drivers licenses and auto insurance right? Why?
We also seem to easily justify homeowners insurance also. Why?
I'll tell you why. Without auto insurance you pay a BIG fine if you're caught and potentially much more if you get in an accident without it. Without homeowners insurance you're mortgage company flips out but worse, in the case of catastrophe you're screwed.
So now we have health insurance and Marklar's ready to head to Mexico.
Well, I would think you would be complaining about mandatory auto insurance and mandatory homeowners insurance, not mandatory health insurance.
The feds have no authority to make you buy car insurance but I'll bet you have it anyway. They also have no authority to force you to buy home owners insurance if you have a mortgage but you probably have that too.
-
-
Jeff, the feds have no authority to make me buy insurance. The facts are there for anyone to read in the US Constitution. If you can't wrap your head around that there is no need to continue the conversation at all because you are simply not equipped to have a valid opinion on the subject of any kind.
Personally I would love to see a single payer socialized health care system in my state. I will NOT however give up my personal sovereignty or that of my state in order to achieve it and much less so with this corporate giveaway.
I can gaurantee that I will NOT ever buy healthcare insurance within the US as a result of this legislation, nor will I pay any of the illegal fines accrued unless I am doing so in order to clear my way to leave the US for good.
THOSE are the facts of the matter.
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
RFK Jr. Appoinment Rocks the World of the Federal Health Agncies and The Big Pharma Profits!
The Appointment by Trump as Secretary of HHS has sent shockwaves through the federal government…See More
Somewhere in California.
Tom Waites and Iggy Pop meet in a midnight diner in Jim Jarmusch's 2003 film Coffee and Cigarettes.
Whatever Happened?
Whatever Happened? The unsung heroes will go about their dayRegardless of the welcome they've…See More
"cheeki kea Nice work! Thank you! "
"Chin up folks, once the low hanging fruit gets picked off a clearer view will reveal the higher…"
"Your right LP it's insane for sure and hopefully improbable, keeping an open mind. Checking…"
"The white dude in the center is Bill Gates!!! "
"How can this scoundrel walk free? Because he's just one of the many similar ones."
"This insane. As if there was a extra-terrestrial enemy who wants to destroy us all."
© 2024 Created by truth.
Powered by
You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!
Join 12160 Social Network