New health care benefits come at a price
Photo 
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., right, talks with Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. outside of the Senate Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington Dec. 9, 2009.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's health care overhaul — now looking like a real possibility — should give uninsured Americans options they've never had before. But it won't be a free ride.
As with the Medicare prescription drug benefit that passed when Republicans ran Washington, consumers will face a complicated lineup of health plan choices — and they'll be costly for some.
"People who need to buy coverage as individuals and small employers are going to have a lot more in the way of attractive health insurance options, and they won't have to worry about whether their medical condition precludes them from being covered," said policy expert Paul Ginsburg, who heads the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change.
The downside: "Sticker shock is going to come to some."
And get ready for a whole new set of trade-offs.
For example, people in their 50s and early 60s, when health problems tend to surface, are likely to pay less than they would now. But those in their 20s and 30s, who get the best deals today, will face higher premiums, though for better coverage.
Obama on Wednesday hailed a tentative deal by Democratic senators to give millions of Americans the option of signing up for private plans sponsored by the federal employee health system, which covers some 8 million, including members of Congress. The compromise, which also offers people age 55 to 64 the option of buying into Medicare, appears to have given Democrats a way around the deal-breaker issue of a new government plan to compete with private carriers. Senators continued to debate for a 10th day, with Democrats pushing to pass the bill by Christmas.
The 2,074-page Senate bill will grow even longer as amendments are considered, but the basic outlines of the legislation most likely to pass are becoming clearer.
The overhaul will be phased in slowly, over the next three to four years. But eventually all Americans will be required to carry coverage or face a tax penalty, except in cases of financial hardship. Insurers won't be able to deny coverage to people with health problems, or charge them more or cut them off.
Most of the uninsured will be covered, but not all. As many as 24 million people would remain uninsured in 2019, many of them otherwise eligible Americans who still can't afford the premiums. Lawmakers propose to spend nearly $1 trillion over 10 years to provide coverage, with most of the money going to help lower-income people. But a middle-class family of four making $66,000 would still have to pay about 10 percent of its income in premiums, not counting co-payments and deductibles.
No dramatic changes are in store for most people who get coverage through their jobs — about 60 percent of those under age 65. The Congressional Budget Office says the bill wouldn't have a major effect on premiums under employer plans, now about $13,000 a year. Parents would be able to keep dependent children on their coverage longer, up to age 27 in the House bill.
One benefit for people with employer coverage is hard to quantify: It should be easier to get health insurance if they're laid off.
The real transformation under the legislation would come for those who now have the most trouble finding and keeping coverage: people who buy their own insurance or work for small businesses. About 30 million could pick from an array of plans through new insurance supermarkets called exchanges.
Some people's taxes would go up.
To pay for expanded coverage, the House bill imposes a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 and families earning more than $1 million. The Senate slaps a 40 percent tax on insurance plans with premiums above $8,500 for individual coverage, and $23,000 for family plans, among other levies.
The rest of the financing would come mainly from cuts in federal payments to insurers, hospitals, home health care agencies and other medical providers serving Medicare.
Preventive benefits for seniors would be improved. So would prescription coverage. But people enrolled in private plans through the Medicare Advantage program are likely to see higher out-of-pocket costs and reduced benefits as overpayments to insurers are scaled back.
The latest big wrinkles in the debate involve intriguing opportunities for consumers. But even there, they may be less than meets the eye.
Lawmakers have been talking for years about giving average Americans the option of coverage through the federal employee system, "just like members of Congress." The compromise among Senate Democrats would make plans certified by the federal employee system available nationwide, bringing competition to states in which one or two large insurers now control the market.
The other big new idea is to allow people age 55 to 64, one of the groups now most at risk for losing coverage, to buy into Medicare.
Yet from the inside, the federal employee health benefits plan isn't looking all that great these days. Federal workers do have a wide choice of insurance plans, but they're looking at hefty premium increases next year. Individual coverage under the most popular plan is going up 15 percent.
"I don't think you'll ever find someone satisfied with the price," said Jacqueline Simon, policy director for the American Federation of Government Employees.
And what about Medicare? It is widely accepted, with 74 percent of doctors saying in a recent survey that they're taking most or all new Medicare patients. But buying into Medicare won't be cheap, about $7,600 a year not counting out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and co-payments.
Dec 12, 2009 at 3:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Twas the night before healthcare
and all through the clinic,
Not a doctor available, not even a medic
Dec 12, 2009 at 7:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fool-on-the-hill:
You nailed it, my friend!
I could have not said it any better.
.
I will join you in the big house when I refuse coverage, haha...Well, maybe not. The ONE benefit to this insanity is that one CAN make $$$ on the markets, as this corruption and nonsense, is becoming SO overly transparent now. Just as a rather small time trader, I was personally cracking up back in late September/early October, when just SUDDENLY the December call option open interest went THROUGH THE ROOF on all the big health care provider stocks! Yeah, that did not give away what was going to happen, or anything! And you really heard the media report on that aspect, haha! Many in governmnet, and the big insurance insiders are indeed laughing to the bank on this one. While the bank is laughing even more as they just keep doing these carry trades. Borrowing huge $$$'s from the Fed at 0%, NEVER loaning it out, and simply putting it in short term bonds at a couple %, and making off like bandits. Notice how they are all just suddenly rich now? Paying back TARP, and showing record profits, when it was just a few short months ago they were all on the verge of total collapse, haha. This whole "game" is just becoming all to comical now! They can't even come up with a good smoke screen of a story any more to try and cover up what is really going on!
Dec 12, 2009 at 6 a.m.
Suggest removal
kiowamohican, I concur with each one of your posts below, with a couple of additional comments.
A new upper limit loophole added to the Senate version --along with pawning off the high-cost, high-risk 55 to 65 year old age group onto Medicare-- has made the future profit-making potential of the heath insurance industry look even brighter this week.
From the article, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_o...
["As currently written, the Senate Democratic health care bill would permit insurance companies to place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care, as long as those limits are not "unreasonable." The bill does not define what level of limits would be allowable, delegating that task to administration officials.
Adding to the puzzle, the new language was quietly tucked away in a clause in the bill still captioned "No lifetime or annual limits."]
Just wait until said "administration officials" are appointed by some future president who makes Dick Cheney look like Mother Theresa. Then we'll see what today's supporters of even greater government intervention think of "healthcare reform 2009".
You wrote: "Well DUH, that was the plan all along". Plan, indeed. We both know there are no "loopholes" in 2,000 page bills. The lobbyists (lawyers) who draft these tomes of legalese write precisely what they intend to write. This is why all such bills are now so enormous; a trick refined to a science during the Bush 43 administration. Also note how the stock price of giant hospital conglomerates and big pharma have been rising right along with those of health insurance companies, as they all drool in anticipation of this pending legislative abomination. Soon after it passes, our costs for health care will make today's outrageous costs look cheap by comparison. Republican politicians will say "we told you so" and Democrat politicians will blame Republican politicians. Everyone mentioned in this paragraph will be laughing at the foolish American public... all the way to their respective banks. Those same banks who --not at all coincidentally-- are currently laughing at us.
Just one question... will you visit me in prison for refusing to pay the "non-participation fine" or will you be in there along with me?
Dec 11, 2009 at 9:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
WOW; all you who think it's the private sector scamming governmnet, you should really look into the world of organized crime more. many are moving out of drugs, prostitution, and gambling, and getting into the most lucrative racket of all...FRAUDING OF MEDICARE! 60 minutes ran a story on it a few weeks back. That just scratches the surface!
.
That is not to say that private insurance can, or is not scammed; as well. It's just FAR easier to scam governmnet; as you don't have NEAR the accountability when the governmnet is over seeing anything. Remember all those defense contracts in the 80's, when the governmnet was being charged like $5,000 for a basic pair of pliers? Such stuff rarely happens when it's in the private sector, and you have to answer to shareholders.
Dec 11, 2009 at 9:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Andre:
Perhaps I read the question wrong. That is just the part of the constitution that lays out the judiciary, and the Supreme Court being the highest of court. No where in the constitution does it say the supreme court has "final say". The whole idea behind a balance of powers, of 3 branches of governmnet is so that NO BRANCH has a final say or dictator style power. Each branch can check the other, in theory. Unfortunately the executive branch has become WAY to strong. As I mentioned earlier you have Presidential czars (used both by Bush and Obama heavily) who can circumvent the legislature. Not to mention the travesty of these executive orders that completely trample the constitution.
.
The executive branch seizing all this power really started in the Andrew Jackson era, when he ignored a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Cherokee Indians, and sent in the troops to force them to leave there land. Thousands dyed along the "trail of tears" in the forced move by the military that Jackson ordered in defiance of the Supreme court.
Dec 11, 2009 at 9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The recent jump in health care stocks is because a real public option won't be in the bill. A bill with a public option would have been much more scary for health insurance companies."
.
Well DUH, that was the plan all along!
The whole public option was a giant smoke screen. The deal with big insurance was cut all before this thing even started. It's all one big game, with the the result being decided long ago! UHN went up 6% because it was the idiots buying it, who FINALLY saw there would be no public option. The insiders were buying back in September when they result was set in stone. Many (like myself) sold today, and grabbed profit (about 25-30% if you just bought the stock long back in October...150-300% if you bought various call options back then)..The very classic strategy of "sell on good news"
Dec 11, 2009 at 8:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
" When government is wasteful, it is because a private sector company is trying to defraud them."
-
False premise. Blaming government waste on private companies is like blaming banks for bank robbers. The people in charge of government have been the biggest wasters of tax dollars.
Dec 11, 2009 at 3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hey Zoom, if busineses fail let them fail, I agree . Why should the fed bail themn out? GM should have declared bankruptcy first before the fed spent billions we taxpayers will never see.
Dec 11, 2009 at 3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
The government didn't force the banks to leverage themselves 30 to 1, and take down the economy when they lost the gamble.
Dec 11, 2009 at 3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
"When government is wasteful, it is because a private sector company is trying to defraud them."
No, when the economy tanks, it it usaully because the government interferes too much. When you bog down business with high taxes, high union lazy labor expenses, and government bureacracy it becomes hard for businesses to thrive.
You complain about companies doing this or that but the government machine system usually causes most of the economic problems.
Dec 11, 2009 at 2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Citizens get to actually vote the CEO of the country into office but shareholders most often do not."
Just like we need term limits.
Dec 11, 2009 at 1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
The concept that the private sector isn't wasteful and incompetent is delusional to say the least. The "evil" government bailed them out and not the other way around. Citizens get to actually vote the CEO of the country into office but shareholders most often do not. When government is wasteful, it is because a private sector company is trying to defraud them.
Health Care costs will go up because people will live longer according to the CBO. That isn't evil, it is good.
Dec 11, 2009 at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
"United Health care (the biggest health insurance provider) soared 6.5% today alone, and is up near 30% in the last month as the signs of this bill passing become more and more evident."
The recent jump in health care stocks is because a real public option won't be in the bill. A bill with a public option would have been much more scary for health insurance companies.
"There are common sense and practice solutions that can be put in place without a colossal government control option needed. For those people removed from work (laid-off, transition, etc) there should be an option available to prevent lapse in coverages; thus preventing "preexisting condition" exclusions."
This doesn't solve the pre-ex problem. If someone on COBRA gets a disease, it will still be considered pre-existing when they sign a new policy, even though there was no real lapse in coverage.
Dec 11, 2009 at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
"But the 'EVIL GOVERNMENT' would set those nationwide mandates. That's no different than the "insurance pool" currently being debated by the Democrats."
-
False. The insurance pool put forth in the senate plan is run by each state, with mandates set by each state…nothing changed from what is in place now except the flawed approach of adding one more source for insurance assuming that will lower consumer prices...it will not.
Dec 11, 2009 at 11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
"I have to laugh at the folks on this blog like Zoom who keep saying all the insurance CEO's are getting rich and getting all these bonuses."
Never wrote any such thing. Once again you're mistaking fantasy with fact.
Dec 11, 2009 at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
"A single set of very limited mandates nationwide combined with the ability to purchase a custom level of coverage the individual requests will save consumers money."
But the 'EVIL GOVERNMENT' would set those nationwide mandates. That's no different than the "insurance pool" currently being debated by the Democrats.
Dec 11, 2009 at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
"It is scary that people like that (none of whom have actually run a business) actually run anything in government. I guess it's not surprising though, since they'd not be qualified to run anything in the private sector."
Right on Kinsohn! Think of this way also. When it comes to spending/using other people's money/property, most (fed) would not care that much about it so they they spend it frivolously and with no end. Example-Look at a public housing apartment building and a private apartment complex. Which one looks better most of the time?
In business, hard tough decisions (layoffs, reorganizations,) are made to combat an innefficient enterprise and make money. But, in the fed, state governments, and local governments, wasteful financial and budgetary inefficiences keep going and going without any consequences to those who are responsible for this waste in government. I have to laugh at the folks on this blog like Zoom who keep saying all the insurance CEO's are getting rich and getting all these bonuses. Yeahm soem are and I do not approive of that but I more concerned with our own fed that keeps spending and spending and keeps bringing down our economy.
Dec 11, 2009 at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
One piece of ignorance I can't let go: companies do not get their profits first and then pay out administrative costs and cost of goods sold (or cost of care in the case of health insurance companies). It's the other way around, which is why profits are so up and down and the stock market is a risk.
Stating it otherwise belies an underlying ignorance of how businesses fundamentally operate. It is scary that people like that (none of whom have actually run a business) actually run anything in government. I guess it's not surprising though, since they'd not be qualified to run anything in the private sector.
Dec 11, 2009 at 1:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
andre: That would be Article III, section 1.
.
Mathew: Yes; that is why I think it is madness to mandate someone to have insurance, in a country that once prided itself upon individual freedom, and liberty. Someone like myself now will be forced by the governmnet to buy health insurance, that I do NOT want, at God knows what cost! I do not want it, because I live a very healthy life style, and see no need to protect myself against risk (which as I stated earlier is the whole purpose of insurance). Now if I had a serious injury, and massive medical costs as a result, I would pay dearly for taking my risk of not insuring myself. I would not go bankrupt, or be covered by all the "paying customers". I would simply have a huge bill that I would have to pay out of pocket, and take a serious financial hit. But that is all part of risk taking. That use to be the American way, and what built the country to it's massive wealth and prosperity.
.
Now a days you are just all part of the great collective cause. I will pay into this huge governmnet bureaucracy (that is all tied into the corporate giants of the private sector who have allied them self with governmnet)for a product I do not want, and my premiums will go to support all the people who live an unhealthy life style, and are reckless with their body and health, because they no longer care. And why should they? They are now covered for any health breakdown brought on by their own reckless choices.
Welcome to the new America folks!
Dec 10, 2009 at 11:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
The best way to counter the soaring health care costs in this country is to get people educated on wellness! (Teaching people to not be sick!)
Dec 10, 2009 at 8:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
battler, Under Clinton, in 8 years, about 400,000 were cut from the armed services, exactly the same that GHW Bush cut in 4 years. The first Bush administration initiated the defense cuts because the cold war was over. Bush Jr. never raised the number, it`s the same now as when Clinton left.
Dec 10, 2009 at 8:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom your arguments against opening the insurance borderlines are flawed. The very problems with increased costs are inefficiencies everywhere including insurance companies. By requiring each insurance company to have requirements based in every state they operate, ALL DIFFERENT, is a deterrent to efficiency. A single set of very limited mandates nationwide combined with the ability to purchase a custom level of coverage the individual requests will save consumers money.
To your argument #2, that is already in place; the above would fix it.
Dec 10, 2009 at 7:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
"unpaid medical bills are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S."
-
This is such a tired and wrong statement. Bankruptcies are caused by loss of income causing inability to pay bills. Becoming sick causes many people to loss income...nothing proposed by anyone in this 1 trillion dollar mess will guarantee income to someone not working while being treated for an illness.
Dec 10, 2009 at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Much as I kept posting in other gazette threads that have dealt with health care; I have been telling you that this bill would end up being a huge GIFT to the insurance companies. Today; my case was made for that even further more on the markets (with the peoples who opinions mean the most...The ones ho have actual $$$ in the game). United Health care (the biggest health insurance provider) soared 6.5% today alone, and is up near 30% in the last month as the signs of this bill passing become more and more evident. All the other major health providers have done the same. All you delusionalists who seriously believe this is going to stick it to big insurance are literally cracking me up to the point I am falling off my chair!! This is going to be one huge WINDFALL to big insurance, and why most are supporting it! United Health care is tied big to AARP, and the Obama administration. This whole game of the "evil insurance" is one giant smoke screen. Big insurance is going to make a fortune from this as they merge with the governmnet as part of the new Oligarchy rule!
.
Well; at least I can cash in my United Health care December calls now. That was one of the easiest trades of all time!! HAHA
Dec 10, 2009 at 3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Vatoloco - stop being so hysterical. The U.S. government is not my god. And they certainly are not the answer to everything. However, you seem to be coming quite close to what would have been called between 2000 and 2008 as "hating America." Why do you keep bashing our country? If you don't like it maybe you should leave.
I'm also not trying to skew the "promote the general Welfare" line. People keep asking "where does it say in our constitution" like it's a 1,942 point list that we can check. It's not. The words came from the people who set up our original government. I don't know what they meant by it. However, in a Supreme Court challenge, I'm guessing it would be one of the constitutional statements that may come in to play.
Dec 10, 2009 at 3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
FOTH, unpaid medical bills are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S. Go ahead and keep believing that the uninsured are not a liability though.
Dec 10, 2009 at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
916WI-To the statist minded folks, the fed has replaced God as the only means to solve all of society's ills. To them, the way to the kingdom of utopia goes through the state.
Dec 10, 2009 at 3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
intrigued......how far can one skew the "promote the general welfare" line? It could easily be argued that food and housing are much more critical than health care in terms of a person's welfare. Should it be the governments responsibility to provide these as well? Is "Big O" going to step up and front the bill on a 5 acre farmette for me in the country?--because I need my general welfare promoted!!!!! Seriously--a $1.2 trillion dollar expense minimum, the horrible track record of Medicare, and the lack of any accountability when it comes to these government run "businesses" should lead any rational person to demand that the government stay as far away from taking over health care as possible......
Dec 10, 2009 at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
"People who don't have insurance and then need health care ARE a liability to the rest of us paying customers."
That is a myth. Insurance companies demand a disallowance (discount) and receive it. They also force providers to wait as long as a year before getting paid. I am billed full price and expected to pay in 30 days. The insured don't subsidize me --I subsidize the insured. We all subsidize Medicaid, which demands disallowances in the range of 80%. (Medicaid pays only about 20 cents on the dollar, paid through taxes. Higher medical costs for everyone else make up the 80% remainder.)
People like me are the only remaining market force holding down the cost of healthcare.
Dec 10, 2009 at 2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
So is this article saying we can't get something for nothing? That would make a great figure of speech.
Dec 10, 2009 at 2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Um, vatoloco, that's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Dec 10, 2009 at 2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
We are afforded certain rights under the Constitution. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty from the tyrannical tendencies of a governement to expand its role in society.
Dec 10, 2009 at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Professor:
Insurance actually has one of the smallest profit margins out there. It's only about a 2-3% profit margin, which is nothing compared to many other industries that are in the 10-30% range. If you buy stock in insurance companies, it's really an ultra defensive play, that offers very little growth, or profit potential to the share holder (with many having lost there shirts in some companies...ie AIG share holders). The entire benefit of having open markets, and publically traded companies is that if you think they have a good business model, and are making all this "easy" money, you can take part of that as an individual share holder of the company. So for all these people who think these insurance, oil, food, ext companies are making these obscene profits, then simply buy stock in those companies you think are hosing you. It's often not as "easy" of money as you think.
.
Of course when you have the governmnet running the operation, no one cares about costs, and or profit. You then in turn, end up with mass bureaucracy, corruption, and fraud (organized crime has no moved full throttle into Medicare fraud; as it is the easiest thing out there to scam).
Dec 10, 2009 at 2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Vatoloco: Could you give me more of a constitutional answer rather than an emotional one?
Dec 10, 2009 at 1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
vato--agreed, when comparing just those two.
Dec 10, 2009 at 1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
"I believe a case could be made that making sure all citizens have access to health care is part of the "promote the general Welfare" line."
Get out of here with that one. That one is getting very old.
Dec 10, 2009 at 1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
"(including salaries (and million dollar bonuses for execs), overhead, etc"
This is a drop in the bucket compared to government waste, corruption, and fraud.
Dec 10, 2009 at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
andre_linoge: The Constitution is not as clear as that (that's why we have the Supreme Court to interpret it.) But here is the Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I believe a case could be made that making sure all citizens have access to health care is part of the "promote the general Welfare" line. In addition, I understand kiowamohican's explanation of the difference between mandating auto insurance and health insurance. However, those of us with insurance are currently paying for the uninsured when they show up at the ER, hospital or whatever. People who don't have insurance and then need health care ARE a liability to the rest of us paying customers.
Dec 10, 2009 at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Health care simply cannot be controlled by 'for-profit' insurance companies, like it currently is. By law, any business must make a profit. Thus, before paying out anything for actual health care, the insurance business must deduct money for the costs of running the business (including salaries (and million dollar bonuses for execs), overhead, etc.) and profits for shareholders (isn't 10-20% the accepted Wall St. figure?). So, in order to get $100 worth of care, I'll have to pay at least $150. Admittedly, this is an over-simplification, but still, why are people insisting on taking that extra $50 to give it to the corporations then? It make ZERO sense.
Dec 10, 2009 at 1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
andre:
Yes; there will be many challenges. It's not necessarily about you having a "right" to health insurance; as it could be argued that health insurance is part of governments role to protect a citizens welfare. However; the big constitutional questions come in when you force someone to buy a product, against their will. The bill has not passed, so no one really even knows what exactly is in the 2000 or so pages, yet. But if forces people to have insurance who do not want it, it will raise serious constitutional questions. Most all states now legally require you to have auto insurance, but that is quite a bit different; as the insurance is liability. So if you are at fault in causing injury to someone else; the person injured is not totally screwed if you are a dead beat. Insurance in most cases is simply a means to protect, or hedge against, risk to yourself and or property.
Dec 10, 2009 at 1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Andre--Probably the same place where it says we all have a right to privacy....
Dec 10, 2009 at 1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Forget about other states. What will eventually happen is health care coverage will be out sourced to other countries, when the industry is hit with all these new federal mandates, and regulations.
.
Companies, and Doctors; will simply move their operations to other countries to bypass all this. You all ready have a big new boom of people taking trips to Costa Rica to get a hip or knee replacement. They fly you there, you get the procedure done, and then can stay and enjoy the beaches for a few weeks...All at about half the cost as it would be getting it done in the US. The biggest coming boom industry is going to be heath care offered in other countries, mark my word on that one.
Dec 10, 2009 at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
It will be interesting what happens in the Supreme court once this bill passes; as no doubt there will be legitimate challenges to the bills constitutionality. All these "New Deal 2" proposals will bring serious constitutional questions into play. The 1st new deal got around that by packing the Supreme court with bought off, corrupt, judges. It will be interesting how the balance of power in this country becomes circumvents again in the name of the public good, and "crisis". You all ready have serious bastardizations now with all these czars and regulatory agencies, as well as executive orders that can be used from the executive branch to bypass congress.
In other words the grip of the new world Oligarchy will just keep getting stronger and stronger; as power becomes circumvented, and unchecked.
Dec 10, 2009 at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Buying health insurance from other states is a ridiculous proposal. The people advocating it obviously haven't thought it through.
1: Each state mandates different insurance standards for the industry. If health insuarance can be sold across state lines, insurance companies will simply sell their insurance plans from the states with the least amount of regulations and consumer protections. Win for the insurance companies, lose for the consumers.
2: Even if each insurance company sold their plans from different states, imagine the increased claim processing headache for the service providers (hospitals, doctors, etc.). High overhead is currently one of the reasons our heath care is so expensive. Universal health care would greatly reduce overhead for service providers, but we aren't going down that path.
Dec 10, 2009 at 12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here is a nice little 9-minute primer:
"How to Fix Health Care—Lasik surgery for the medical debate" December 2, 2009
http://reason.com/blog/2009/12/02/reason...
Dec 10, 2009 at 12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
You don't have to take it if you don't want it. Your offer for insurance from your employer is in no way a comparison for mandating you must have coverage...a vast difference.
Dec 10, 2009 at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF - why not? If it is MY compensation why can't I say what I want to do with it? I also only get to purchase from the select groups my employer offers.
Dec 10, 2009 at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
"those are great ideas for those of us who have coverage. Now, for those who don't?"
-
There are common sense and practice solutions that can be put in place without a colossal government control option needed. For those people removed from work (laid-off, transition, etc) there should be an option available to prevent lapse in coverages; thus preventing "preexisting condition" exclusions.
Dec 10, 2009 at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Clinton job cuts were mostly our military, that is why all of our reserves are deployed today.
Dec 10, 2009 at 12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
"I have been forced to buy health care since about 1982 when I first got health care provided by my employer."
-
This was part of your compensation as you correctly said. This however, was not forced on you under penalty of law if you decided not to take it. You can think it was forced, but we both know it was not.
Dec 10, 2009 at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF: those are great ideas for those of us who have coverage. Now, for those who don't?
Dec 10, 2009 at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just imagine how much more valuable and comfortable our nation would be if we did not have to support the bureacracy in Washington.
Dec 10, 2009 at 12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sannio: I have been forced to buy health care since about 1982 when I first got health care provided by my employer. You see, my employer considers this health care as part of my compensation (and justly so). However, should I say, "You know, I'm healthy, never go to doctors, why should $600/month go to an hmo when I never use it? Hey, employer, I don't want my health care, I want the money instead." You know what they would tell me?
Dec 10, 2009 at 12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Intrigued, first drop the delusion that this is about healthcare. This legislation is over control of the system, two vastly different things.
More directly to answer a question what is a good way to better the current operations of healthcare in respect to costs, there are many things. First, require all medical facilities to have posted fees and services so you as a consumer know in advance what items cost; do you buy a TV and take it home without knowing the price?
Competition. Under current state laws you can only shop for insurance within your own state lines; how is this competitive. The latest change to the senate bill is to increase pools within each state, again limiting competition. Adding another choice within the same state boundary, a public option, is hardly an increase in competition. Open the market so you as a consumer can shop for a product you want no matter where it is sold.
Policy mandates. You should have the option as to what coverage you want so you can control your own expenses.
Dec 10, 2009 at 11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Don Diego: It's called "selective memory."
Dec 10, 2009 at 11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
I often wonder why Reagan gets so much credit. The debts exploded under his administartion. Now they invoke his name at every turn. I don't get it.
Dec 10, 2009 at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ok health care legislation naysayers. What's the cheap and non-sucky way to fix what ails the U.S. health care system?
Dec 10, 2009 at 11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Being forced to buy health care. Who owns you now?
Dec 10, 2009 at 11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
and the hell -th care begins.
Dec 10, 2009 at 11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Regardless of political sides, this piece of legislation sucks and is going to be costly down the road.
Dec 10, 2009 at 10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
I'll second that motion, intrigued.
Dec 10, 2009 at 10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reagan cut taxes once, raised them 7 times in six years, one raise was, and is, the largest peacetime tax raise ever, As for cutting spending, the Congress gave him less than he asked for in every budget, and he still managed to raise the deficit almost to three times it`s size. Your memory is a little altered. Under Reagan the government expanded by 61,000 workers, compare that to the cut of 373,000 under Clinton.
Dec 10, 2009 at 10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Whoanellie: And just exactly what happened to the U.S. Budget between 2000 and 2008? Save, Save, Save? If you're going back to Reagan, why have you skipped the Republican presidents between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Obama? Is it possible that it ISN'T a democrat/republican issue but that the fed is just spend, spend, spend whoever is there? Let's just STOP fighting about republicans and democrats and figure out a way to take back control of our government. Sheesh people, what exactly does your whining get you?
Dec 10, 2009 at 10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
The democrats have always done nothing but spend, spend, spend, which means higher taxes for those of us who actually work! Let's go back to Reagan and remember what he did. He cut taxes and government spending and viola the economy grew and jobs were created!! whats wrong with the picture today??? Democrat controlled everything!!!
Dec 10, 2009 at 9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
What a crappy piece of legislation. I hope it gets deleted, and soon.
Dec 10, 2009 at 8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Read the headline of the article. How ironic. Exactly what have people been saying since this discussion was originally brought up. It's going to be expensive and we're all going to pay for it. Higher premiums and higher taxes are the key phrases. For all of you that thought this was going to be a freebee, here's your wake up call. One of the stupidest ideas ever.
Dec 10, 2009 at 7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
What's not to like in a program that's designed to go bankrupt 7 years after benefits kick in? Only Democrats could set up a system like this and say with a straight face it doesn't add to the deficit.
Dec 10, 2009 at 7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
This whole thing is a scam..read the bill
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.