Links and Stuff About US Contact Lunar
Welcome to Lunar Magazine
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar  RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Healthcare Reform puke sandwich....
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LunarMagazine.com Forum Index -> Politics and Philosophy
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Aquatechnic



Joined: 16 Apr 2003
Posts: 4150
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:55 pm    Post subject: Healthcare Reform puke sandwich.... Reply with quote

From: Jean van der Sommen [mailto:jwvandersommen@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:23 PM
Subject: What's in Store for Small Business and Washington


I just spent 2 days in Washington DC along with approximately 1300 insurance agents, most that are Health Insurance agents but others as well since they are concerned about the future of health insurance for their families. If the government will take over large companies, now a plan for banks, our health insurance - well what about other industries as well.

Most of you know me well and some I have just spoken with but you're all small business people - you either own one, lead one or work for one and would like to keep working, I'm sure.

I'd like to share with you some of the truths about the health care changes that are being proposed as well as some other laws that will affect small businesses under the Card Check bill, Cap and Trade, etc. If this seems to lean away from the democratic party, I'll apologize now because they are the ones with all of the power and are not even reading what is being proposed and are in a hurry to pass legislation. Not to say that people are thrilled with the Republicans either but the Democrats have all the power and it seems the urgency and ego to put in more and more government.

As far as 47 million people being uninsured, well we have those individuals that will never want to spend money and believe they don't need insurance. Some of these people make over $50,000 a year. Quite a number are illegal- our states are making the application for Medicaid a little tough to find for those that need it. Really there are only 8 Million people that need help. Over 250 Million of us have insurance. I don't think there is really anyone, including those that sell health insurance, that know we need some reform like covering pre-existing conditions. Those of us in Georgia realize we are one of only 3 states that do not have a high risk pool and as an organization of health agents, we have certainly tried for years to work with our state to fund such a plan with no success.

So here's what you may not know -
- Georgia is one of the highest for premium taxes - fully insured plans have 4.7% embedded tax where 2.25% goes to the state and 2.45% goes to counties and cities.
With a public plan all of the revenue will be gone to our states and local communities.
- Insurance carriers must have reserves to pay claims - the government will just have to print more money.
- A public plan can be so less expensive that it will destroy our private insurance.
- We will have no recourse for government decisions on our healthcare while an individual currently has that right.
- It has already been said that there will be no torte reform so the public can remain sue happy but yoy cannot sue the government.

As far as the hospitals saying they will give up approx. 1.55 million, well they were to get an increase in reimbursement so if they do not receive this increase, that is how they are giving up the dollars they are talking about. In other words, there is nothing there to give up.

Pharmaceutical companies have also agreed to make less money, but what we didn't hear was that the government agreed in order to do this, the pharmaceutical companies have been given a 5 year extension on their patents before they must go generic. This is not going to save you and I any money in the long run and the pharmaceutical industry isn't losing anything.

To pay for health care - if you earn over $225,000 before you pay your employees, you will be charged a 5% surtax and as your income goes up so does the tax.
If you are a company and you have $400,000 in salaries (it increases with more and decreases with less - may stop at $200,000 in salaries) you will pay an 8% tax
to help pay for healthcare. If you have an employee that does not take your insurance (goes on spouse's plan, won't take insurance, etc.) you will pay an 8% penalty according to this
individual's salary. THIS HAS BEEN PASSED AS OF TODAY.

As far as buying insurance across state lines with an exchange - believe it not Georgia is somewhat reasonable. States like New York, Texas, and New Jersey would really benefit from
this idea. New Jersey's individual premium exceeds $900 a month. How this happened was that one of the legislature's daughters could not get pregnant so New Jersey covers infertility treatment where most states may cover a diagnosis for infertility but do not cover the treatment. Health insurance agents are typically learning all the time about companies that mislead the public. Ever heard of Mega Insurance, NASE, they are not what say they are and yet they are legal in Georgia while lots of companies are stopped in their tracks by health agents and turned over to the insurance commissioner. These companies are located out of Georgia and are really not allowed to do business here. A health insurance agent is not permitted to sell these plans or we will lose our license.

When the government tells us that we can keep our coverage if we like it - look at page 16 of their plan. If you have individual coverage and you want to change anything about it, whether it's your deductible, or the carrier - once this bill would pass you can longer sell (or buy) individual coverage privately. If you have your coverage and never ever make a change, you can keep your plan. As for group, once the public option goes into effect after 5 years you again cannot even add a child without being knocked out of your private insurance and have to go into the public plan. THIS HAS BEEN PASSED AS OF TODAY.

Our private insurance really makes up for what providers do not receive through Medicare. Approximately 50% of the public is already on coverage through the government with Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP for chidren, VA benefits, etc.

Our government believes that agents make too much money. They believe we make about 50% on what we sell. On medical insurance, it can be as little as 3% to 7%. What they don't realize is that alot of agents help negotiate renewals or finding another plan that is best for an organization, solve claims and billing problems, conduct meetings for employees, and alot of times are the missing HR person that small companies cannot afford. We have to know all of the carriers available not only for medical but for dental, vision, disability, etc. We are licensed and must fulfill continuing education credits each year including ethics.

We also learned that at this point for every dollar we spend we have to borrow a dollar.
If you hear the phrase Comparative Cost, this really means rationing and it's an accounting term.
Ms. Pelosi spends alot of time and effort to get her votes and holds off for a vote until that time. This may mean that the Blue Dog Democrats can oppose what the government is doing and vote no while still looking good to their voters because their votes weren't really needed (Blue Dogs are more conservative democrats).

One of the things that we don't expect to pass is a bill by Rep Fleming (don't know what state) and co-signed by John Linder in Ga. that if you vote for this bill then you must leave the government plan to go onto the public plan. Like that can happen!

It's still open to tax employees on the benefits an employer provides and to take away any credit an employer gets for providing the benefits.

It's not too late, but this is all happening on party lines. In Georgia we need to contact Sanford Bishop, David Scott, Jim Marshall, Paul Broun, and John Barrow. If you are in another state, please contact your democratic representatives and it doesn't hurt to remind the republicans you are against this plan. We are being turned into Europe and I've already lost my mother-in-law and our nephew's father to misdiagnoses in Holland with no permission for a second opinion. I don't want to go there - do you?

Other changes coming is lowering FMLA to 25 employees, instead of 50 - Stronger enforcement of the DOL, OSHA etc. with considerable fines to be paid and no more slap on the wrist - under Card Check your employees will have more rights starting at 15 employees and will also have the right to sue you.

If you care about your family and their healthcare or you care about small businesses who provide the majority of the jobs in this country, please start making contact now. If you can write and fax (in 8th grade language) to your representatives, please do so. If these bills pass, there is no turning back and the government knows it. We really do not want this happen.
_________________
Corey Von Waters
Decibel Ent.
Oliver Huntemann @ Halo Lounge 6-29-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
djy



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 3930
Location: Behind the decks!

PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Corey,

I don't think the 8% tax on businesses has passed yet.

As a previous small business owner, that would have been affected by this provision, I know it will be a supreme job killer.

Not only that, it will create inflation and close businesses.

Most small business don't have an 8% margin!

And that is just ONE provision of this bill.

The tax increases caused by this bill will affect everyone in this country. Currently the bill targets mostly high income brackets. But the bill uses 9 years of taxes(using a static tax analysis) to fund 7 years of health care. Even then it is $300 billion short! Where do you think the shortfall will come from?

I think we can safely start using the "S" word to describe Obama, and much of the Democratic Congress.

But it would be unfair not to cast any blame on the Republicans. This crisis has been years in the making, and they had sufficient time to introduce reasonable i.e market oriented, health care reform, but failed to do so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VJ



Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Posts: 5898
Location: Easside..

PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Long ago it was said to eliminate insurance mandates (state mandate crap) and allow insurance shoppers to compete across state lines. That gives us too much control so neither party did anything and here we are today with this "must do now" bullshit. Check out today's WSJ for good editorials..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779717982855785.html#mod=todays_us_opinion

Quote:
Say this about the 1,018-page health-care bill that House Democrats unveiled this week and that President Obama heartily endorsed: It finally reveals at least some of the price of the reckless ambitions of our current government. With huge majorities and a President in a rush to outrun the declining popularity of his agenda, Democrats are bidding to impose an unrepealable European-style welfare state in a matter of weeks.

Mr. Obama's February budget provided the outline, but the House bill now fills in the details. To wit, tax increases that would take U.S. rates higher even than most of Europe. Yet even those increases aren't nearly enough to finance the $1 trillion in new spending, which itself is surely a low-ball estimate. Meanwhile, the bill would create a new government health entitlement that will kill private insurance and lead to a government-run system.

Hyperbole? That's what people said when we warned about this last fall in "A Liberal Supermajority," but even we underestimated the ideological willfulness of today's national Democrats. Consider only a few of the details:
[REVIEW & OUTLOOK]

A huge new income surtax. The bill's main financing comes from another tax increase on top of the increase already scheduled for 2011 under Mr. Obama's budget. The surtax starts at one percentage point for adjusted gross income above $350,000 in 2011, rising to two points in 2013; a 1.5 point surtax at incomes above $500,000, rising to three in 2013; and a whopping 5.4 percentage points in 2011 and beyond on incomes above $1 million.

This would raise the top marginal federal tax rate back to roughly 47% or 48%, if you include the Medicare tax and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. With the current top rate at 35%, this would be the largest rate increase outside the Great Depression or world wars.

The average U.S. top combined state-federal marginal tax rate would hit about 52%. This would be higher than in all but three (Denmark, Sweden, Belgium) of the 30 countries measured by the OECD. According to the nearby table compiled by the Heritage Foundation, taxpayers in at least five U.S. states would pay higher marginal rates even than Sweden. South Korea, which Democrats worry is stealing American jobs, would be able to grab even more as its highest rate is a far more competitive 38.5%.

House Democrats say they deserve credit for being honest about the tax increases needed to fund their ambitions. But then they also claim that this surtax would raise $544 billion in new revenue over 10 years. America's millionaires aren't that stupid; far fewer of them will pay these rates for very long, if at all. They will find ways to shelter income, either by investing differently or simply working less. Small businesses that pay at the individual rate will shift to pay the 35% corporate rate. When the revenue doesn't materialize, Democrats will move to soak the middle class with a European-style value-added tax.

Phony numbers. Democrats will have to come up with something, because even the surtax puts their bill at least $300 billion short of honest financing. The public insurance "option" doesn't even begin until 2013 and the costs are heavily weighted toward the later years, but the tax hikes start in 2011. So under Congress's 10-year budget window, the House bill is able to pay for seven years of spending with nine years of taxes. Andy Laperriere of the ISI Group estimates the bill would add $95 billion to the deficit in 2019 alone.

Then there's yesterday's testimony, from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf, that ObamaCare's cost "savings" are an illusion. Mr. Obama claims government can cover more people and pay less to do it. But Mr. Elmendorf told the Senate Finance Committee that "In the legislation that has been reported we don't see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs."

Further on the public plan: "It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate."

No matter, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is whisking the bill through House committees even before CBO has had a chance to score it in detail. As Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan put it to us, "We will not have read it, and we will not have a score of it, but we will have passed it out of committee."

A new payroll tax. Unemployment is at 9.5% and rising, but Democrats will nonetheless impose a new eight percentage point payroll tax on employers who don't provide health insurance for employees. This is on top of the current 15% payroll tax, and in addition to a new 2.5-percentage point tax on individuals who don't buy health insurance. This means that any employer with more than $400,000 in payroll would have to pay at least 25% above the salary to hire someone. Result: Many fewer new jobs, with a higher structural jobless rate, much as Europe has experienced as its welfare states have expanded.

Other new taxes, including an as yet undetermined levy on private health plans. This tax, which Democrats say could raise $100 billion or so, would make it even harder for private plans to compete with the government plan, which would already benefit from government subsidies and lower capital costs. For good measure, the House bill also gets the ball rolling on tax increases on foreign-source corporate income.

We could go on, and we will in coming days. But the most remarkable quality of this health-care exercise is its reckless disregard for economic and fiscal reality. With the economy still far from a healthy recovery, and the federal fisc already nearly $2 trillion in deficit, Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history. The world is looking on, agog, and wondering why the United States seems intent on jumping off this cliff.



And how about that provision IBD found outlining under which cases you can get insurance from private providers once your existing provider changes for whatever reason. I am sorry I haven't read the bill because a) I work and b) I can't read as fast as the legislators. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
VJ



Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Posts: 5898
Location: Easside..

PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Expect unemployment to continue this way..with more hitting the breadlines...further taxing the unemployment insurance program, with fewer biz's kicking in, if this happens. In fact, if you can make enough people 'want'....you could stick around as their superman forever! Oooh. Again as Jason G says you should charge all 536 with criminal negligence. Or you can demand term limits. Or politicians who are accountable. After american idol winners are announced.

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Fifteen states have crossed a painful threshold: 10 percent unemployment. More states, and the nation, likely will follow, one of the biggest dangers to an economic recovery.

How consumers behave in the face of rising unemployment will figure prominently in shaping a broader rebound. If they go back into hibernation and sharply cut spending like they did at the end of last year, the recovery could cave in. More likely is that consumers will stay cautious, making for a fragile and slow-moving national economic turnaround, economists said.

The Labor Department on Friday said unemployment topped 10 percent in 15 states and the District of Columbia last month. And the jobless rate in Michigan surpassed 15 percent, the first time any state hit that mark since 1984.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Aquatechnic



Joined: 16 Apr 2003
Posts: 4150
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This article hit it head on:

Middle-class families are struggling every day with rising costs of housing, food, transportation, and taxes. But for many, rising costs of health care are the most devastating of all. That’s why Americans’ top priority during the ongoing health care debate is a plan that will reduce costs. Unfortunately, the government takeover of health care offered by the Washington Democrats will not reduce costs; instead, it will dramatically increase costs – for your family, America’s small businesses, and all taxpayers.

Last week, Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) sent shockwaves through Washington when he told Congress that the Democrats’ plans would make health care more costly. Throughout this debate, President Obama has spoken of the need to “bend the cost curve” or drive health care costs down. During a congressional hearing, however, Mr. Elmendorf testified that the Democrats’ plans would have the opposite effect, saying that under their proposals, “The curve is being raised” and costs would “significantly expand.” That’s because the Democrats’ plan adds a new layer of taxes, mandates, and bureaucracy on top of the current system. If that’s not bad enough, the Democrats’ plan cuts Medicare and takes away choices for millions of seniors. What does all of this mean? Higher costs for the medicine and treatments you need.

Not only will the Democrats’ government-run health care plan raise your costs, but it also will raise costs for our nation’s employers – particularly small businesses. At the heart of their proposal is a small business tax that, for tens of millions, means diminished job security. The National Federation of Independent Businesses warns that the small business tax and mandates in the Democrats’ plan will destroy 1.6 million jobs – one million of them in small businesses alone. And according to methodology developed by Dr. Christina Romer, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, the government takeover would cost Americans 4.7 million jobs over the next 10 years. With our economy at its weakest since the Great Depression and unemployment soaring far beyond the levels promised by the Administration, why would Congress promote policies that make jobs even more scarce?

In addition to warning that the Democrats’ plan will raise health care costs, the Congressional Budget Office also has projected that the House Democrats’ proposal would increase the deficit by another $239 billion over the next 10 years. And even though the President continues to claim that those who like their current health care plans can keep them under the Democrats’ proposal, independent analysts disagree. One analysis shows that 114 million Americans may be forced off their current coverage and onto a government-run plan as a result of the House Democrats’ legislation. That means more costs to the taxpayers. The bottom line: while Democratic leaders continue to claim that health care legislation must be “paid for,” the House Democrats’ bill is not. Instead, it will force us to borrow more from China and countries in the Middle East and stick our children and grandchildren with the tab.

Faced with the Democratic bill’s extraordinary costs to families, small businesses, and taxpayers, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) suggested last week that Democrats should go “back to the drawing board.” I agree, and that’s why House Republicans have offered real reforms that would lower health care costs. Our plan roots out waste, fraud, and abuse in the system and reforms medical liability rules that cost families millions each year – millions that line the pockets of trial lawyers at the expense of patients and doctors. It lets small businesses band together through associations and purchase health insurance for workers at a lower cost, just like large corporations and unions do. It offers incentives to help Americans who do not have access to quality health care get the coverage they can afford, while giving states tools to design programs that make health care coverage more affordable. And it reforms regulations so insurance companies compete for your business and you can shop around for the best coverage and price.

Health care reform is too important to rush through a flawed proposal that will raise costs – the opposite of what the American people want. After the Obama Administration insisted that Congress rush to enact a “stimulus” bill that – by any objective account – has not created the jobs that were promised, Washington cannot afford to make that same mistake on health care. Nonetheless, it appears Democratic leaders will stubbornly try to ram through this bill before Congress leaves for the August break with little debate or discussion, even as many rank-and-file Democrats express serious concerns about what a costly government-run plan would mean for families and small businesses. It’s time for Democrats to scrap their government takeover of health care and work with Republicans on a plan that gives more Americans access to affordable coverage.
_________________
Corey Von Waters
Decibel Ent.
Oliver Huntemann @ Halo Lounge 6-29-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
transponder



Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5890
Location: Erotic City

PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:08 am    Post subject: Re: Healthcare Reform puke sandwich.... Reply with quote

Aquatechnic wrote:
From: Jean van der Sommen [mailto:jwvandersommen@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:23 PM
Subject: What's in Store for Small Business and Washington


I just spent 2 days in Washington DC along with approximately 1300 insurance agents, most that are Health Insurance agents but others as well since they are concerned about the future of health insurance for their families. If the government will take over large companies, now a plan for banks, our health insurance - well what about other industries as well.


Name one bank the government "took over".

Lehman was insolvent
Bear was insolvent

WAB was insolvent and merged
WM was insolvent and merged
CFC was insolvent and merged

Others are REALLY insolvent even though they're allowed to continue operating through an underground tunnel to Saudi Arabia.

Fannie and Freddie are under Federal conservatorship, but they're government entities anyway.

AIG is somehow publicly traded and under control of its shareholders. So are a lot of others. All will be subsidized by taxpayers at some level with or without a direct tax until they pay off their CDO debts to the hedge funds who orchestrated this bullshit.

We "own" this because it's truly what WE paid for. Oil and synthetics. And boner pills. And a ton of other imported cheap plastic shit. Some of it was used to build a lot of houses last I heard.


Quote:
they are the ones with all of the power and are not even reading what is being proposed and are in a hurry to pass legislation.

Maybe they're not reading it because they already did in 1992-93??


Quote:
Not to say that people are thrilled with the Republicans either but the Democrats have all the power and it seems the urgency and ego to put in more and more government.

I agree. Politicians have been known to waste a lot of money by protecting the people who equate the negative consequences of their motives to sound policy.

Quote:
I don't think there is really anyone, including those that sell health insurance, that doesn't know we need some reform like covering pre-existing conditions.

hehe and see that's where Obama started out. All the talk about pre-existing conditions, but now it's going right back to HillaryCare circa '93. Mandated coverage?? Personally I think that's a little much to swallow.

It matters not though the number of insured vs. uninsured. 100% insured could still mean that the government run portion of healthcare we already have called Medicare and Medicaid bankrupts the budget.




Quote:
So here's what you may not know -

With a public plan all of the revenue will be gone to our states and local communities.

Hopefully not a plan that prohibits private insurers from doing business. Otherwise the upside on the Fed's marketshare is only 47 million of which the states didn't generate any revenue from in the first place. I think they need to word it so that corporations aren't allowed to dump their health benefits just to inflate their stock prices.


So much hate and contempt thrown @ Obama but THE REAL BENEFICIARY of state run healthcare is the S&P 500, wheter they can shave off benefit costs to improve their own balance sheets in the long term or counteract the effects of higher taxes in the short term.


Quote:
- Insurance carriers must have reserves to pay claims - the government will just have to print more money.

LOL You obviously haven't been paying attention for the last 2 years. Ever hear about the story of Enron or how they sold their entire business model to the heads of the corporate banking system at the turn of the century buddy?? Rolling Eyes



Quote:
- A public plan can be so less expensive that it will destroy our private insurance.

How can a proposal for the creation of an interstate exchange pool be destroying competition?

Besides, private insurance pays dividends for doctors in quantity, NOT quality care already. So if by "destroy" you mean ending the practice of rewarding doctors not to do the job right the first time, then by all means, destroy the everloving shit out of it. It's quite apparent that most doctors have more than they can handle. Maybe doctors could actually use less customers so they can do a better job of treating the people they see?


Quote:
- We will have no recourse for government decisions on our healthcare while an individual currently has that right.

But I don't see the issue of the right to sue being greater than what can be done towards better preventive care. Better preventive care could mean a lot less conflicts and malpractice.

Quote:
- It has already been said that there will be no torte reform so the public can remain sue happy but yoy cannot sue the government.

Hence implied tort reform by limiting litigation against the government. Hence trimming costs the government incurs at the expense of everybody who brings litigation against the private insurers.
Hence preserving Medicare and Medicaid that everybody is already fine with anyway.
So what's the problem? Apparently the recourse you have against the government is PAYING FOR HEALTHCARE.


Quote:
To pay for health care - if you earn over $225,000 before you pay your employees, you will be charged a 5% surtax and as your income goes up so does the tax.

What a crafty way to say the Bush Tax Cuts are expiring.

Quote:
If you are a company and you have $400,000 in salaries (it increases with more and decreases with less - may stop at $200,000 in salaries) you will pay an 8% tax to help pay for healthcare. If you have an employee that does not take your insurance (goes on spouse's plan, won't take insurance, etc.) you will pay an 8% penalty according to this individual's salary. THIS HAS BEEN PASSED AS OF TODAY.

Oh darn. Looks like LLCs can't continue evading taxes by shirking out on their employees and paying them in pecos. Oh well this is America. What goes up must come down. I guess the guys in the big cowboy hats are gonna have to find somebody better than McCain/Palin to undo this.

Quote:
When the government tells us that we can keep our coverage if we like it - look at page 16 of their plan. If you have individual coverage and you want to change anything about it, whether it's your deductible, or the carrier - once this bill would pass you can longer sell (or buy) individual coverage privately. If you have your coverage and never ever make a change, you can keep your plan. As for group, once the public option goes into effect after 5 years you again cannot even add a child without being knocked out of your private insurance and have to go into the public plan. THIS HAS BEEN PASSED AS OF TODAY.

Not true about the public plan. What the bill says is if you aren't "grandfathered" in on a plan by the date the bill becomes law, you must purchase private insurance on an exchange made up of different providers from different states. Obviously there will be providers listed from Georgia as well right?

Whoever is circulating this excerpt from one paragraph and claiming that it "BANS PRIVATE HEALTHCARE" is limited on their reading comprehension. I can't stand people with short attention spans.


Quote:
Our private insurance really makes up for what providers do not receive through Medicare.

Hence why they will start being pooled in an exchange of some sort is my guess.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
transponder



Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5890
Location: Erotic City

PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

VJ wrote:
And how about that provision IBD found outlining under which cases you can get insurance from private providers once your existing provider changes for whatever reason. I am sorry I haven't read the bill because a) I work and b) I can't read as fast as the legislators. Laughing


lol

You give the IBD article too much credit by implying that exchange based private insurance would even be available because apparently the guy on IBD has a short attention span and didn't make it that far before relying on false assumptions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
djy



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 3930
Location: Behind the decks!

PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:23 am    Post subject: Re: Healthcare Reform puke sandwich.... Reply with quote

transponder wrote:
Aquatechnic wrote:
From: Jean van der Sommen [mailto:jwvandersommen@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:23 PM
Subject: What's in Store for Small Business and Washington


I just spent 2 days in Washington DC along with approximately 1300 insurance agents, most that are Health Insurance agents but others as well since they are concerned about the future of health insurance for their families. If the government will take over large companies, now a plan for banks, our health insurance - well what about other industries as well.


Name one bank the government "took over".


You conveniently forgot the auto companies

transponder wrote:

Quote:
they are the ones with all of the power and are not even reading what is being proposed and are in a hurry to pass legislation.


Maybe they're not reading it because they already did in 1992-93??


You're right. It's the same Senators and the same bill. Hopefully, it will have the same outcome. Wink




transponder wrote:

It's quite apparent that most doctors have more than they can handle. Maybe doctors could actually use less customers so they can do a better job of treating the people they see?


That makes perfect sense. The doctors will have less customers, because we will increase the number of people insured. Rolling Eyes

transponder wrote:

Quote:
- We will have no recourse for government decisions on our healthcare while an individual currently has that right.

But I don't see the issue of the right to sue being greater than what can be done towards better preventive care. Better preventive care could mean a lot less conflicts and malpractice.


How naive! And that is one leap of faith assuming that we will have better preventative care.



transponder wrote:

Quote:
If you are a company and you have $400,000 in salaries (it increases with more and decreases with less - may stop at $200,000 in salaries) you will pay an 8% tax to help pay for healthcare. If you have an employee that does not take your insurance (goes on spouse's plan, won't take insurance, etc.) you will pay an 8% penalty according to this individual's salary. THIS HAS BEEN PASSED AS OF TODAY.

Oh darn. Looks like LLCs can't continue evading taxes by shirking out on their employees and paying them in pecos. Oh well this is America. What goes up must come down. I guess the guys in the big cowboy hats are gonna have to find somebody better than McCain/Palin to undo this.


For someone who knows so much about the market, you have precious little knowledge of how the real world operates.

I owned LLCs that would have qualified under this provision. It would have made me go bankrupt.

Most small businesses will not be able to afford this. They will either cut their payroll (i.e. job losses), or cut the pay of their employees.

Either way it will hurt employment in this country.

This provision in itself, is sufficient reason to oppose this bill.

Our system is by no means perfect, and we need to fix it. But this bill is not a fix, it's a disaster!

Unless the vast majority of participants in any plan have some skin in the game, I can not see myself supporting the plan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jason G



Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1934
Location: Robotrippin'

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just wish they'd quit trying to cram it through before the August recess. That is simply shameful. Read it, debate it, understand it, THEN vote on it. Shame on Congress, shame on the White House for pressuring them to do it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
djy



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 3930
Location: Behind the decks!

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jason G wrote:
I just wish they'd quit trying to cram it through before the August recess. That is simply shameful. Read it, debate it, understand it, THEN vote on it. Shame on Congress, shame on the White House for pressuring them to do it.


+1.

Let's if we're going to fix health care, let's do it properly.

Many complex issues.

I believe the fear is that if they wait, the "public option" will never make it through.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
transa firma



Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 11063
Location: Baltimore State Hospital for the Criminally Insane, Basement Level

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

|
|

harry reid heard ya ( :
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/us/politics/24health.html?hp
    Quote:
    Senate Won’t Vote on Health Care Overhaul Before Recess

    Article Tools Sponsored By
    By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and JEFF ZELENY
    Published: July 23, 2009

    WASHINGTON — The Senate will not vote on health care legislation before leaving for its summer recess, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday, as he finally acknowledged out loud the inescapable political reality that has been clear for several days.
Jason G wrote:
I just wish they'd quit trying to cram it through before the August recess. That is simply shameful.

_________________
´¯`·.¸¸..><((((º>.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸·¸<º))))><
`·.¸¸.¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸·¸><((((º>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VJ



Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Posts: 5898
Location: Easside..

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wish theyd go on recess till the next election. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
spunkie



Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Posts: 678

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

djy wrote:

+1.

Let's if we're going to fix health care, let's do it properly.

Many complex issues.

I believe the fear is that if they wait, the "public option" will never make it through.


Obama said today he doesn't expect to have it done by the August recess. He claimed as long as it is making progress he will let it play out with the right amount of time. We'll see how that unfolds...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
transponder



Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5890
Location: Erotic City

PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

djy wrote:

transponder wrote:

Quote:
If you are a company and you have $400,000 in salaries (it increases with more and decreases with less - may stop at $200,000 in salaries) you will pay an 8% tax to help pay for healthcare. If you have an employee that does not take your insurance (goes on spouse's plan, won't take insurance, etc.) you will pay an 8% penalty according to this individual's salary. THIS HAS BEEN PASSED AS OF TODAY.

Oh darn. Looks like LLCs can't continue evading taxes by shirking out on their employees and paying them in pecos. Oh well this is America. What goes up must come down. I guess the guys in the big cowboy hats are gonna have to find somebody better than McCain/Palin to undo this.


For someone who knows so much about the market, you have precious little knowledge of how the real world operates. I owned LLCs that would have qualified under this provision. It would have made me go bankrupt.

Most small businesses will not be able to afford this. They will either cut their payroll (i.e. job losses), or cut the pay of their employees.

Either way it will hurt employment in this country. This provision in itself, is sufficient reason to oppose this bill. Our system is by no means perfect, and we need to fix it. But this bill is not a fix, it's a disaster!

Unless the vast majority of participants in any plan have some skin in the game, I can not see myself supporting the plan.


Naive? lol

I'm not the one who's apparently been duped into thinking that small business like LLCs can sustain America's labor force a la BushEcon.

No I have never run a "legitimate" LLC, but the reason LLCs had such a boom over the last decade or so is due to the overflow of cheap credit our financial system made available. Obviously this model has proven unsustainable. Hence why you say you once "owned"?

Meanwhile the multinationals made off like bandits as they avoided employing actual Americans by playing politics and taking a good portion of their manufacturing business outside the borders. Their political puppets tout the creation of unsustainable "jobs" while their accountants avoided paying Uncle Sam after enjoying the protection of the American umbrella.

I think small business has its place in the economy but it's extremely unlikely to provide a majority of American families with the benefits and stability they need. Hence why I'm totally fine with increasing the standards for being a boss in light of what's happened. You're probably right that the legislation as its written should be amended. I would prefer that higher taxes didn't affect moms and pops, but the cocktail party is over for the boys in the big cowboy hats and handlebar mustaches who helped to create an import only, debt based society.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Aquatechnic



Joined: 16 Apr 2003
Posts: 4150
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Suck on this Obama koolaid drinkers!!!Wink Just for shock value. Cool Cool
\
5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news...ion=2009072410

By Shawn Tully, editor at large
July 24, 2009: 10:17 AM ET

5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform

If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.


NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.

A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.

If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.



Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.

The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.

Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.

Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.

The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.
But read on.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.

5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO.

You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.

The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.

In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.

Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.

The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad
_________________
Corey Von Waters
Decibel Ent.
Oliver Huntemann @ Halo Lounge 6-29-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LunarMagazine.com Forum Index -> Politics and Philosophy All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot add events in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 
home  |  features  |  events  |  reviews  |  dj charts  |  forum  |  my lunar  |  links  |  about us  |  contact