Health Care reform bill reactions

[crashhelmet]

If you don't buy "Obamacare" you can lose your tax refund

Basically same information, but gives you "hints" on how to get around the tax refund penalty

Where do you think the government levies most of it's fines? If they don't garner your paycheck, they garner your tax refund. This is nothing new.

CH

[Rapscallion]

As I understand it, doctors are liable if they don't treat the patient in front of them. Afterward, however, you must pay out of pocket (huge amounts though not ridiculous per -e when all is taken into account.) or, if you can't, they must simply take the hit. Only they can't afford to, so instead, they charge everyone else's insurers more for the treatments so as to 'break even'. Problem being that those insurers then raise their premiums in order to break even, costing everyone more money and making insurance that much harder to get.

You know, the economic situation you describe there reminds me of something.

National healthcare.

People with greater incomes pay a little bit more, and everyone gets treated on an emergency basis.

The difference with the UK version and the US is that poor people can get basic treatment in the UK and we don't have a bureaucracy of people trying their best to make money out of other peoples' health (at least not in the sense of owning and running companies to do just that).

In essence, those with are saddled with the responsibility of paying for those without. Only with the added problem that the whole thing is getting more and more expensive over time.

So, not much more different from national healthcare in the UK.

Actually, the communist creed is 'from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need', so it's not too far from that. Wowsers!

Just more parasites on the system, from what I can see, more open about having them, and a generally lower average standard of care.

Rapscallion

[Fryk]

Maybe a lot of people don't know this about our current system, but in some states (like my Michigan) you can't even GET Medicare,-caid right now. At least not if you didn't before. The state of michigan (and I can't believe we're the only ones) has put a freeze on paying out for anyone new trying to apply. I know because my wife and I tried to get on it. The social worker said to just keep trying until they unfreeze the funds.

So yeah, something, even sucky something, is better than nothing.

[Arcade Man D]

If you don't buy "Obamacare" you can lose your tax refund

Basically same information, but gives you "hints" on how to get around the tax refund penalty

Those headlines are what we call "lies". It's not "if you don't buy Obamacare", and a reading of the first two sentences of the first article bears that out. It's "if you don't buy health insurance", which was a part of the bill from the get go, and was initially pushed as an idea for reforming health care in this country.... by the GOP.

[IDrinkaRum]

IIRC, the GOP wanted to make it easier for people to get insurance in any state even if they didn't live in that state. (For example, if someone who was paying, say, $500/month in insurance in Idaho could find the exact same coverage in like Maine for $350/month, they could buy the Maine insurance even thought they didn't live there).

Also, here is something that hasn't been discussed here:

Florida woman has been denied a life-saving bone marrow transplant because she accepted a Social Security disability check to help raise her son

Woman had raised $133,000 over the internet to pay for the transplant. However, she did have Medicare insurance to help her in the hospital (which the hospital required in case something went wrong during the procedure). She never asked for disability payments to help offset the cost of raising her son, but the agency called and offered her $1,100/month. After she accepted, she was cut off from Medicare because she was "making too much money". The Social Security agency never told her that if she accepted the payments, she wouldn't be able to get Medicare.

I'm pretty sure President Obama and the rest of those in Congress are not going to be parading this woman's son around saying "Look what the big bad government has done - screwed a woman out of insurance that could get her a bone marrow transplant so she could live to raise her son."

But they have no problem parading around young Marcelas Owens when it came time to make insurance companies the enemy

[Fashion Lad!]

IIRC, the GOP wanted to make it easier for people to get insurance in any state even if they didn't live in that state. (For example, if someone who was paying, say, $500/month in insurance in Idaho could find the exact same coverage in like Maine for $350/month, they could buy the Maine insurance even thought they didn't live there).


Woman had raised $133,000 over the internet to pay for the transplant. However, she did have Medicare insurance to help her in the hospital (which the hospital required in case something went wrong during the procedure). She never asked for disability payments to help offset the cost of raising her son, but the agency called and offered her $1,100/month. After she accepted, she was cut off from Medicare because she was "making too much money". The Social Security agency never told her that if she accepted the payments, she wouldn't be able to get Medicare.

But, what's not being addressed in that article is the fact that insurance companies will not be able to deny anyone coverage based on medical history and those who cannot afford health insurance will get tax credits for purchasing it. In her case, she won't be paying anything in taxes so even if she got a $3500 tax credit, she'd get $3500 from the government.

I'm not so sure why you're *so* against a bill that's supposed to cut spending by $138 billion in the first 10 years and even more in the next 10 years. It's not like these are Obama numbers, this is coming from the CBO. At the same time, while reducing spending we are covering more people. The health care bill is supposed to cut medicare funding and have more people buy their own health care. And like I said before, if people cannot afford health care, the government will help them pay for it.

[IDrinkaRum]

1. where is the government going to get the money to help those who need help getting insurance?

2. why not focus on what is already there and revamp it? (Medicare and Medicaid)

3. as I said before, my cousin & his wife are ticked off at being forced to buy something they do not want or need. Why penalize them and others like them?

[Jason]

The CBO was pressured by Pelosi to "low ball" the nuumbers to be under $1 trillion. How can spending $900+ billion save $138 billion??

[Wingates_Hellsing]

1. where is the government going to get the money to help those who need help getting insurance?

2. why not focus on what is already there and revamp it? (Medicare and Medicaid)

3. as I said before, my cousin & his wife are ticked off at being forced to buy something they do not want or need. Why penalize them and others like them?

Others can probably say it better, but I'm going to go ahead and take a stab at this:

1: As part of the massive rollback in spending elsewhere as part of this bill.

2: Because any revamp significant enough to address the issue would effectively scrap both Medicare and Medicaid in favor of a new system. It's simpler and arguably more efficient to add a new component.

3: That part doesn't sit well with a lot of people, including here, however, it's fair to say that everyone will sooner or later need if not greatly benefit from having health-care. But most of all, we can't make health-care cheaper (what this bill does) if we have people mooching off the system, so you need to either pay for it yourself, or give us the money we'll probably end up needing to break even on your behalf later.

[IDrinkaRum]

Why shouldn't the part of people not wanting insurance, no matter what, not sit well with people? They are not "cheating the system", and they pay for everything out of pocket. Which might be a good thing, as then they can get tests or see whomever they want whenever they want and you don't have to wait around for the insurance companies or the government to say "yay" or "nay". I have no problem with those who choose not to have healtcare insurance at all.

As for everything else? Where are we rolling back on spending? On National Defense? On other types of government-sponsored/run programs?

We shouldn't blindly all say "Yay government is taking care of me!" We should be looking and wondering what government is doing to take care of us and can we live with it?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Why shouldn't the part of people not wanting insurance, no matter what, not sit well with people? They are not "cheating the system", and they pay for everything out of pocket. Which might be a good thing, as then they can get tests or see whomever they want whenever they want and you don't have to wait around for the insurance companies or the government to say "yay" or "nay". I have no problem with those who choose not to have healtcare insurance at all.

As for everything else? Where are we rolling back on spending? On National Defense? On other types of government-sponsored/run programs?

We shouldn't blindly all say "Yay government is taking care of me!" We should be looking and wondering what government is doing to take care of us and can we live with it?

Okay, yeah it doesn't and shouldn't. But sitting well or not isn't much grounds for deciding if something is positive or negative. The problem exists nevertheless that there are people who are doing their best to cheat the system. Provided people don't go to inordinate lengths to worm around getting insurance, the cost of that insurance will go down. Probably to the point where it's fundamentally the same as paying out of pocket.

As far as I'm able to tell, most of the 'cuts' are in Medicare and Medicaid where their coverage will be taken over privately. I haven't been able to find a detailed list (google fu is weak with me atm) but it looks as though big ticket items aren't going to be effected. Most of the bill deals with measures to reduce healthcare costs so people can pay for it for themselves. Thus meaning that the government spends less money. Those payouts that do exist in theory amount to less than that which the government is spending currently, and will shrink over time.

I don't know where you got the idea that I or anyone else here is blindly accepting the divine grace of governmental help. I heard about the bill, looked into what it proposes to do and how. I weighed all the pros with the one or two cons and decided that pros exceed cons. Do I think it's perfect? no, nothing is. Do I think it will work? yes, though there is a chance as with all things that it won't.

In essence, this bill makes sure that people pay for themselves without inadvertently saddling that cost on others. You're still free to spend your money however you want, it's just that, in a nation where doctors are legally bound to treat you barring a select few circumstances, that means you have to be legally bound to pay them for it.

[Fashion Lad!]

The CBO was pressured by Pelosi to "low ball" the nuumbers to be under $1 trillion. How can spending $900+ billion save $138 billion??

That is the cost of the bill in outlays. There will be receipts with this bill as well making the net cost of the bill to the deficit -$138B over ten years.

[Jason]

That is the cost of the bill in outlays. There will be receipts with this bill as well making the net cost of the bill to the deficit -$138B over ten years.

To the detrement of Medicare.
Also, taxes for the bill start with the next fiscal year, the benefits don't start until 2014 at the earliest. Theres the negative cost; collect for 10 only provide for 6.

[IDrinkaRum]

There is the wording in the bill where it says you don't have to get insurance right away. There will be people out thre who will be more than content to pay the "fine" - which will be cheaper than getting insurance until the very last minute when/if they truly need insurance.

That's what a lot of people are forgetting. No matter what happens, the insurance companies will have to take people with pre-existing conditions. Doesn't only apply to those who are born with certain conditions, but also to those who have no insurance all of a sudden find out they have cancer, or whatever other disease might befall them and then they decide they need insurance.

And as Jason pointed out, we're going to start paying for it very soon, but no one will have access to it until at least 2014 if not later.

Also, like that woman in Florida, if you qualify for government to help pay for your insurance, will accepting one disability check to help pay for the things your child needs make you "too rich" for the government to help you out?

Also, are the people who cannot get Medicare and/or Medicaid now with their jobs, will they suddenly, magically, be allowed to get insurance either with their own money or with the government helping them?

[Fashion Lad!]

And as Jason pointed out, we're going to start paying for it very soon, but no one will have access to it until at least 2014 if not later.

What are you talking about? The Health Care bill starts off in phases.

• Beginning the calendar year in 2010 (retroactive) tax credits for small business to make employee coverage more affordable. Those tax credits will up to 35% of the premiums will be immediately available to those companies that choose to offer coverage.
  
• In 2011, seniors will be able to receive name brand prescriptions 50% off.
  
• Provides a $250 rebate to those people on Medicare that hit the donut hole in 2011. (Donut hole from wikipedia "is the difference of the initial coverage limit and the catastrophic coverage threshold".
  
• Free preventative care under medicare starting in 2011. (no deductible)
  
• Help for early retirees to help them afford insurance. This starts 90 days after enactment of the bill.
  
• Bans insurers from dropping people who are covered because they are sick. This starts 6 months after enactment of the bill.
  
• No discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions.
  
• Bans on life-time limits for coverage.
  
• New plans cannot tightly restrict annual limits that prevent people from getting much needed care.
  
• Free preventative care under new private plans.
  
• Requires plans in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on medical services, and plans in the large group market to spend 85 percent. Insurers that do not meet these thresholds must provide rebates to policyholders. Starts in January 2011
  
• Provides immediate help for those who uninsured because of previous conditions or who are in the high-risk pool. 90 days after the bill is enacted.
  
• Requires health plans to allow young people up to their 26th birthday to remain on their parents' insurance policy, at the parents' choice. 6 months after the bill is enacted.
  
• Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for nearly a doubling of the number of patients seen by the centers over the next 5 years.
  
• Increases the number of nurses, primary care doctors, etc. by providing more training.
  
• Prohibits new group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees.
  
• Creates a long-term care insurance program to be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled. Starts in January 2011

Everything I listed starts either in 2010 or calendar year 2011. This health care bill is starting in phases. I'm sure anyone can find something in there that they will benefit from.

Edit -- I wanted to take on this as well

To the detrement of Medicare.
Also, taxes for the bill start with the next fiscal year, the benefits don't start until 2014 at the earliest. Theres the negative cost; collect for 10 only provide for 6.

We save $130 billion over the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion during the next 10 years of the bill. So... what's the problem?