healthcare house bill vote this weekend

[4TehNguyen]

and behold the dirty dealings, crony capitalism and Chicago thuggery at its finest
http://www.newsmax.com/morris/health...08/283349.html

As the suicidal Democratic congressmen proceed to rubber-stamp the Obama healthcare reform despite the drubbing their party took in the '09 elections, the president trotted out the endorsements of the AMA and the AARP to stimulate support. But these -- and the other endorsements -- his package has received are all bought and paid for.

Here are the deals:

* The American Medical Association (AMA) was facing a 21 percent cut in physicians' reimbursements under the current law. Obama promised to kill the cut if they backed his bill. The cuts are the fruit of a law requiring annual 5-6 percent reductions in doctor reimbursements for treating Medicare patients. Bravely, each year Congress has rolled the cuts over, suspending them but not repealing them. So each year, the accumulated cuts threaten doctors. By now, they have risen to 21 percent. With this blackmail leverage, Obama compelled the AMA to support his bill...or else!

* The AARP got a financial windfall in return for its support of the healthcare bill. Over the past decade, the AARP has morphed from an advocacy group to an insurance company (through its subsidiary company). It is one of the main suppliers of Medi-gap insurance, a high-cost, privately purchased coverage that picks up where Medicare leaves off. But President Bush-43 passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered a subsidized, lower-cost alternative to Medi-gap. Under Medicare Advantage, the elderly get all the extra coverage they need plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same physician. So more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage, cutting into AARP Medi-gap revenues.

Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage. The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP -- which supposedly represents them -- will make more money. (If this galls you, join the American Seniors Association, the alternative group; contact sbarton@americanseniors.org. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .)

* The drug industry backed ObamaCare and, in return, got a 10-year limit of $80 billion on cuts in prescription drug costs. (A drop in the bucket of their almost $3 trillion projected cost over the next decade.) They also got administration assurances that it will continue to bar lower-cost Canadian drugs from coming into the U.S. All it had to do was put its formidable advertising budget at the disposal of the administration.

* Insurance companies got access to 40 million potential new customers. But when the Senate Finance Committee lowered the fine that would be imposed on those who don't buy insurance from $3,500 to $1,500, the insurance companies jumped ship and now oppose the bill, albeit for the worst of motives.

The only industry that refused to knuckle under was the medical device makers. They stood for principle and wouldn't go along with Obama's blackmail. So the Senate Finance Committee retaliated by imposing a tax on medical devices such as automated wheelchairs, pacemakers, arterial stents, prosthetic limbs, artificial knees and hips and other necessary accoutrements of healthcare.

So these endorsements are not freely given, but bought and paid for by an administration that is intent on passing its program at any cost.

[J.P.]

This is all BS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why such an attack on small business? This kills everyone from doctors to pizza shop owners, kill the $5 hot and ready good bye!

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

[LB Lex]

Originally Posted by J.P.

This is all BS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why such an attack on small business? This kills everyone from doctors to pizza shop owners, kill the $5 hot and ready good bye!

To this day I just don't understand why small businesses were never given financial help, and now the government wants to add to the burden with additional taxes & fines.

What also ticks me off is that there is hardly any news coverage of the details because "it's not the final bill". Once it's finalized it will be rammed through in the middle of the night and only after it is passed will we see the details (just like that additional 10% withholding in California, no one knew about it until it went into effect months later).

[4TehNguyen]

Originally Posted by J.P.

This is all BS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why such an attack on small business? This kills everyone from doctors to pizza shop owners, kill the $5 hot and ready good bye!

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

Guess whats going to happen, businesses will just pay the fine and just dump everyone onto the govt plan. Health coverage for employees is a hell of a lot more than 8% of payroll, AND the govt gains a nice 8% tax on that business. Then govt will go hey this is great look at all the people that are "flocking" to the public option

[Turbo_gg]

Originally Posted by 4TehNguyen

Guess whats going to happen, businesses will just pay the fine and just dump everyone onto the govt plan. Health coverage for employees is a hell of a lot more than 8% of payroll, AND the govt gains a nice 8% tax on that business. Then govt will go hey this is great look at all the people that are "flocking" to the public option

That is exactly what will happen. Then the Government will victoriously claim that they have solved the health care crisis of America (for the 15% of Americans that don't currently have health insurance). Idiots.
One small problem, the real cost of this plan will most likely be significantly more than the government bean counters planned on . Since when has ANY massive government program EVER cost what was estimated??? So, guess what, more taxes are going to be needed to pay for this monster. Perhaps they should create a tax on the taxes we pay.

[Jewcano]

Originally Posted by Turbo_gg

Perhaps they should create a tax on the taxes we pay.

Boy hush yo mouth. They'll see that agree, and create a tax called "Inconvenience taxation tax" which will be aimed at taxes that are inconvenient for them to collect already.

[1SICKLEX]

I would like to see provisions made for tax cuts for people that stay healthy, for whatever reason. Is it fair? No. However there are millions that are no burden to healthcare and take care of themselves (or are just lucky) and they continue to have to pay more and more. Why should they be forced into plans and to pay more?

At this point, TO ME its kind of like telling people to just live anyway you want as you will have healthcare and the "doctor will patch you up". We need a significant shift in our health thinking as well as the rape of the industry with costs.

If costs were kept decent and people took care of themselves, this would alleviate some of the issues (clearly not all). For instance those with health issues sometimes face RIDICULOUS fees and costs which put a tremendous financial burden on people. Some of the costs are insane! There has to be a way to make them more affordable.

Government run anything is usually the LAST RESORT for people. Seeing it as a first resort is scary lol.

Its clear this plan is just another way to tax everyone and milk those this more. Its disgusting (again).

Those with health issues, I do wish they can get help if they can't get it. If the government wants to provide for them, so be it. It shouldn't be at a burden to EVERYONE.

[mmarshall]

Originally Posted by 4TehNguyen

individual mandate needs to be challenged in court. No where in the Constitution does the federal govt have any authority for an individual mandate. Funny when CBO said the closest thing tehy can find in federal law for an individual mandate was the Selective Services System which is registration for a potential military draft. Theres a perfectly good reason for this, because its freaking unconstitutional. States are allowed to pass individual mandates by the 10th amendment. That is how they mandate you to carry auto insurance, it is not a federal mandate.

I agree with most of what you say (and there are some Constitutional questions here), but the health-insurance mandate, at least as it is being explained, is not an across-the-board one. Those who are very low-income (I don't remember the cutoff point) will be exempt and not mandated to buy their own policy. The SSS (draft) was not an across-the-board mandate, either, as it only affected certain individuals; mostly those on the 1-A draft status. As far as auto insurance goes, that is not a "mandate" even at the state level, because no one is legally forced to drive a car.....driving, in all 50 states, is legally a priviledge, not a right or a mandate. And, even with an auto insurance "mandate" at state level, obviously, many drivers still don't have insurance, which is why, on your insurance policy, there is an "Uninsured Motorists" fee, which goes to cover vehicle and medical damages caused by uninsured drivers who can't pay it themselves.

[4TehNguyen]

Obama keeps using the car insurance mandate as an excuse. First off its not even federal law, its state law. And you dont have to drive a car, but you have to live your life. So its a weak comparison. Even with mandates theres 10-15% uninsured drivers, so even mandating it doesn't solve the uninsured problem.

[YARIS!]

Originally Posted by 4TehNguyen

Guess whats going to happen, businesses will just pay the fine and just dump everyone onto the govt plan.

This is exactly what the progressives are counting on. All this talk about being able to keep our current plans is BS. Then when the employers have no choice but to drop our coverage forcing us onto the gov. option, politicians will then say that it isn't their fault but the employers who are screwing us.

They know full well that this is the inevitable road to a single payer disaster.

[YARIS!]

Originally Posted by 1SICKLEX

I would like to see provisions made for tax cuts for people that stay healthy, for whatever reason. Is it fair? No. However there are millions that are no burden to healthcare and take care of themselves (or are just lucky) and they continue to have to pay more and more. Why should they be forced into plans and to pay more?

This is actually not such a bad idea although it might be complicated to put into practice.

Basically, it would work like car insurance in that good drivers who avoid accidents through safe driving pay less for insurance.

Would credit be given to people with least amount of doctor visits including yearly physicals or just for attending to health problems and accident care?
Because the system couldn't punish preventive care otherwise people would skip physicals thereby creating costly risk down the road.

[J.P.]

Seen this off another WSJ posting.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.


So my costs are going to be twice as much as they are now, how it this better exactly???

So tell me this isn’t another form of wealth redistribution!!!

Hell it’s another attack on small business as well!

[J.P.]

Looking at 2010 rates today from Blue Cross.

You can get basic coverage for a couple for $200-300, better coverage for 300-400 with copays within reason, rx coverage and $2500 out of pocket, IF you need to do out of pocket.

So why is that so bad?

[Allen K]

Because it's not "free" healthcare

[1SICKLEX]

Nothing is ever "free"