Archive

positives from health care reform?

  • derek bomar
    http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/21/jane-kill/

    I think the bill sucks personally, but I think it sucks because it really doesn't do all that it could...this article claims that the Senate Bill will provide a foundation for further improvements down the line, which I guess it possibly could. Maybe I am upset at the speed of progress and not the act itself...I dunno. We'll see if this stuff actually happens or not, and I guess 1/2 of people will be happy with the result and 1/2 won't be (which is weird, I'd think everyone should want this to succeed...right?)
  • Writerbuckeye
    This isn't health care reform. It's a health care BILL -- but it's not reform.

    I haven't seen anything positive that will come out of this. Higher premiums and taxes is about all it's going to do for people, along with expanding the interference of government in health care, which will be disastrous in the long term.
  • believer
    Writerbuckeye wrote: This isn't health care reform. It's a health care BILL -- but it's not reform.

    I haven't seen anything positive that will come out of this. Higher premiums and taxes is about all it's going to do for people, along with expanding the interference of government in health care, which will be disastrous in the long term.
    Yes but for liberals more government interference in our personal lives is a positive thing.
  • derek bomar
    Writerbuckeye wrote: This isn't health care reform. It's a health care BILL -- but it's not reform.

    I haven't seen anything positive that will come out of this. Higher premiums and taxes is about all it's going to do for people, along with expanding the interference of government in health care, which will be disastrous in the long term.
    Say it doesn't lead to higher premiums and extends the life of medicare and reduces the debt...will you admit it was a success? Or would it be a failure because BroBama passed it and it's a gov't takeover?
  • majorspark
    derek bomar wrote:
    Writerbuckeye wrote: This isn't health care reform. It's a health care BILL -- but it's not reform.

    I haven't seen anything positive that will come out of this. Higher premiums and taxes is about all it's going to do for people, along with expanding the interference of government in health care, which will be disastrous in the long term.
    Say it doesn't lead to higher premiums and extends the life of medicare and reduces the debt...will you admit it was a success? Or would it be a failure because BroBama passed it and it's a gov't takeover?
    The only way to extend the life of medicare is to grossly cut services, significantly raise fica taxes, or both. The government can't do the afformentioned because of the political consequences, so their is no way this reduces the debt. The opposite will happen as congress will continue to pass the difficult decisions on to future generations.
  • Writerbuckeye
    derek bomar wrote:
    Writerbuckeye wrote: This isn't health care reform. It's a health care BILL -- but it's not reform.

    I haven't seen anything positive that will come out of this. Higher premiums and taxes is about all it's going to do for people, along with expanding the interference of government in health care, which will be disastrous in the long term.
    Say it doesn't lead to higher premiums and extends the life of medicare and reduces the debt...will you admit it was a success? Or would it be a failure because BroBama passed it and it's a gov't takeover?
    I'll come on here and say I was totally, absolutely wrong.

    But I KNOW that won't happen, so I feel comfortable making that pledge. Anytime government interferes with the private sector, prices invariably go UP, not down.

    As for Medicare...I want to see how these "cuts" work out that are supposed to help make this plan "neutral" where the debt is concerned. I'll be shocked if the cuts happen, which will automatically put these changes in the deficit category.
  • Prescott
    It POSITIVELY shows that there has been no change in the way Washington does things.Another promise broken.


    From Americans for Tax Reform

    NEWS: Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in
    Reid-Obama Health Bill UPDATED
    From Ryan Ellis on Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:46 PM

    (Page numbers reference ORIGINAL REID-OBAMA BILL unless noted):

    Individual Mandate Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/$15 bil/Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following (page 71 of manager’s amendment updates Reid bill):
    Single 2 People 3+ People
    2014 $495/0.5% AGI $990/0.5% AGI $1485/0.5%/AGI
    2015 $495/1.0% AGI $990/1.0% AGI $1485/1.0%/AGI
    2016+ $495/2.0% AGI $990/2.0% AGI $1485/2.0%/AGI



    Employer Mandate Tax     (Page 348/Sec. 1513/$28 bil/Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.

    If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

    Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans     (Page 1979/Sec. 9001/$149.1 bil/Jan 2011): Starting in 2013, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($8500 single/$23,000 family). Higher threshold ($9850 single/$26,000 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Longshoremen have been exempted (page 362 of the manager’s amendment)

    From 2013-2015, the 17 highest-cost states are 120% of this level.

    Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Page 1996/Sec. 9002/Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

    Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil/Jan 2011): No longer allowable to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

    HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike     (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

    FSA Cap (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$13.3 bil/Jan 2011): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2011 (added on page 363 of manager’s amendment)

    Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 1999/Sec. 9006/$17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

    Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (page 2001/Sec. 9007/Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS (updated on page 364 of manager’s amendment).

    Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Page 2010/Sec. 9008/ $22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

    Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers     (Page 2020/Sec. 9009/$19.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Rises to $3 billion annually in 2017 (updated by page 364 of manager’s amendment).

    Tax on Health Insurers (Page 2026/Sec. 9010/$59.6 bil/Jan 2011): $10 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2017. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits (updated on page 365 of manager’s amendment)

    Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D     (Page 2034/Sec. 9012/$5.4 bil/Jan 2011)

    Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only

    $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives     (Page 2035/Sec. 9014/$0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

    Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Page 2040/Sec. 9015/$86.8 bil/Jan 2013)

    Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Page 2044/Sec. 9016/$0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

    Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Page 373 of Manager’s amendment/$2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons


    http://www.atr.org/index.php?content=home&roll=1
  • majorspark
    Writerbuckeye wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    Writerbuckeye wrote: This isn't health care reform. It's a health care BILL -- but it's not reform.

    I haven't seen anything positive that will come out of this. Higher premiums and taxes is about all it's going to do for people, along with expanding the interference of government in health care, which will be disastrous in the long term.
    Say it doesn't lead to higher premiums and extends the life of medicare and reduces the debt...will you admit it was a success? Or would it be a failure because BroBama passed it and it's a gov't takeover?
    I'll come on here and say I was totally, absolutely wrong.

    But I KNOW that won't happen, so I feel comfortable making that pledge. Anytime government interferes with the private sector, prices invariably go UP, not down.

    As for Medicare...I want to see how these "cuts" work out that are supposed to help make this plan "neutral" where the debt is concerned. I'll be shocked if the cuts happen, which will automatically put these changes in the deficit category.
    Congress does not have the balls to follow through on any true cuts. As soon as someone cries that grandma has to eat dog food in order to pay for x or y its all over. No way they raise fica taxes enough to reduce the debt. Answer, debt will increase because congress lacks balls to do what is necessary. They will punt to the next generation. Guys like derek will be happy to block for them.
  • IggyPride00
    Positives?

    Healthcare and pharma stocks have been on a tear. At least people with these in their portfolio are seeing a positive gain, and should continue to in the future as this bill insures profits should surge in the future.

    30-40 million new customers with absolutely no mechanisms to control price increases in premiums and drug costs is the biggest boon outside of TARP the private sector could have possibly ever hoped for.
  • derek bomar
    Guys like derek will be happy to block for them.

    Dude - I'm not a hack. I just genuinely want some progress on this issue, and I'm trying to decide if the bill has any in it or not. I think it sucks, but like I said, if it accomplished the goals it claims it will, then I won't be tooooooo upset.
  • CenterBHSFan
    derek bomar wrote: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/21/jane-kill/

    I think the bill sucks personally, but I think it sucks because it really doesn't do all that it could...this article claims that the Senate Bill will provide a foundation for further improvements down the line, which I guess it possibly could.

    Yes, it very well will provide further "improvements" down the line. But I suspect that the word "improvements" is entirely subjective to the end goal.

  • believer
    Just about the only "positive" thing to come out of this is the FACT that the Dems own this piece of crap lock, stock, and barrel. While the Dems are public right now with "victorious jubilation", behind closed doors at least a few of them are sweating political bullets.
  • Prescott
    A bill of this magnitude and economic impact should pass on it's merits and not because some palms were greased.
  • Apple
    First of all, this bill really has nothing to do with healthcare reform. It has everything to do with the government seizing 1/6 of our economy and having the ability to continue it's quest to dictate everything about our lives and what we can and can not do.

    As far as the positives from this, the only thing I see in the future is that the next couple elections are going to be a blood bath for anyone who voted in favor of this bill. Voters have been known to pull the lever while holding their noses. The liberal socialists will lose big in 2010 and BHO may have to run in the primaries just to qualify to be on the 2012 ticket. The Hildabeast is waiting in the wings to swoop in and snatch victory from defeat.

    The republicrats have shown they aren't much better than the socialist liberals running things today. But republicrats are against Obamacare which means they are representative of the majority of the people... and the majority will speak very loudly in the next coming elections.
  • believer
    ^^^Bingo!

    Right now I'd settle for the Republicrats taking back the House and putting Pelosi and Reid in the unemployment lines. Then it'll be great to sit back and watch the Nobel Piece of Work "winner" whine for 2 years until he gets the boot.
  • jmog
    "Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil/Jan 2011): No longer allowable to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)"

    "FSA Cap (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$13.3 bil/Jan 2011): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2011 (added on page 363 of manager’s amendment)"

    This is total BS, anyone who has ever used an HSA/FSA should complain to their senator about this one.

    You have just a couple kids and you are EASILY over the $2500/yr.
  • jmog
    "$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Page 2035/Sec. 9014/$0.6 bil/Jan 2013)"

    Another BS piece of crap. Since when does the government get to decide the payscale of private companies?

    If even the liberals on here don't see this as a step towards socialism, then you are blind.

    The health insurance companies have borrowed zero dollars from the Feds, so you don't have that excuse with this one.
  • ross ford81
    ...because the supporters of this bill HATE private companies, and are on the way to making as many sectors in our economy government controlled or regulated to the point that basic freedoms are eliminated. It is the agenda. "Hope, Change and Control."
  • eersandbeers
    I can find no positives from this health care bill. Honestly, this is one of the biggest disasters to ever happen to the American public for a few reasons:

    1. The left wing liberals hijacked these bills, filled them with pork, and basically ensured real reform will not happen.

    2. They stopped all attempts for real debate of the bill and health care reform which means no other solution is on the horizon.

    3. Obama will not try to pass health care reform again for the rest of his time in office. Thus, we are stuck with our current shitty system.
  • believer
    eersandbeers wrote:3. Obama will not try to pass health care reform again for the rest of his time in office. Thus, we are stuck with our current shitty system.
    All the more reason BHO needs voted out in 2012.
  • derek bomar
    believer wrote:
    eersandbeers wrote:3. Obama will not try to pass health care reform again for the rest of his time in office. Thus, we are stuck with our current shitty system.
    All the more reason BHO needs voted out in 2012.
    You think health care will/would get passed under a Republican Administration? Why hasn't it to date? Just curious...
  • believer
    derek bomar wrote:You think health care will/would get passed under a Republican Administration? Why hasn't it to date? Just curious...
    A couple of items a Republican administration MIGHT consider signing off on with regard to health care reform would be tort adjustments and the ability of employers and individuals to purchase private health care insurance across state lines.

    But single-payer, public option, etc. would most likely NEVER be signed.

    It hasn't been considered to date by a Republican administration is because government-controlled/mandated/funded health care should not even be a consideration.
  • Cleveland Buck
    ccrunner609 wrote: THe health care reform bill should of been one page long. The government should of only done 2 things:


    1. Deregulate selling across state lines.

    2. Mandate tha tthey sell to people with preexisting conditions.


    Start with this. It will lower costs and allow alot more people coverage.
    Mandating anything only raises costs.
  • Cleveland Buck
    There is nothing positive coming out of this unless you own a big pharmaceutical company or health insurance company. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. You thought Bush was bad (and he was).
  • BCBulldog
    Cleveland Buck wrote: There is nothing positive coming out of this unless you own a big pharmaceutical company or health insurance company. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. You thought Bush was bad (and he was).
    This statement embodies exactly what is wrong with our representatives - they only care about representing the interests that will help pay to get them re-elected. The Democrats are shilling for the insurance companies and unions the Republicans are shilling for the drug companies and other big business. All this with the promise of campaign contributions. Meanwhile, the economy is stagnant when not in decline and unemployment remains around 10%.

    You want reform that actually helps the citizenry; deregulate the industry to allow competition accross state lines, enable sensible tort reform (did you hear John Edwards just gasp), expand HSA to permit carrying over unused funds from year to year (who needs insurance, if you can pay out of pocket), provide tax incentives to insurance companies who don't deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions...

    Those are just a few things off the top of my head, but the premise is simple - deregulate insurance, expand competition, eliminate unnecessary and egregious lawsuits, incentivize good behavior (corporate and individual), and provide more flexibilty at the consumer level. I know this doesn't help buy votes, but I guess that explains the behavior we are seeing now.