Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 BikerBiker53
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option Page 4 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
It seems that there is always a WIDE margin of error, because most people dont know how to add up a bunch of 9's, and dont know or care what a "Public Option" really is,..
let alone that Obama's Heath Care Bill is actually a subsidy,...NOT Insurance.


Guess 1.2 trillion is not too much money to spend on the health of our nation.

Ouch if their record holds out that means we could end up with another 3 Trillion to 8.5 Trillion dollar debt.


You know its all this wastefull spending that continues to block America from being all it can be, and from providing Americans the things they really need and deserve.

I remember all the LIES we were told when we considered the LOTTERY,...
We were promised,
The FINEST Roads
The Best Education System
Lower Taxes
A Surplus of Monies to go towards making our lives less complicated and a better quailty of living for all.

Horseshyt.

Now just imagine if, that "Extra" money would of been put to good use, to provide the things we were promised.

Just imagine if someone had the nerve to question Bush's involvement in this Iraq War, and demanded we put a STOP to it before it bankrupted out country, and lost thousands of our troops their lives.

If we had not got involved in an illegal, imoral, and unjust war, and not spent trillions of dollars, and borrowed all these billions from China,..just to keep our Country afloat, imagine how that money could of been spent going towards a real Health Care Program ?

What would happen if we suddenly found our economy strong, and we were able to take the time to draft a Bill that would give all Americans a "Choice" of the kind of Health Coverage that suited them best ?

For Get It !

Your dreaming,...the "Powers That Be" dont give a rats behind what YOU want !

They are driven by Cooperate Greed and Insurance Companies that do NOT care what you or I want as far as Health Insurance and Public Options go.

Why did Obama go back on his statement that he had MORE Important things to do first as President before he could tackle the Health Care situation,..he said on his own Web Site that he probaly couldnt get to it till his second term.

What happenned,...did the Economy suddenly take a turn and repair itself, so that Obama might go ahead and address the issue of Heath Care ?

Did the War suddenly end with the odds in our favor, and our troops return home ?

No,..Obama lied to us from the get go,..he knew he was going to push hard for a Health Care Bill, so that he may bask in the glory of our misfortune, regardless the cost or who wants what.

Tisk Tisk Tisk,...just another empty suit making false promises and lieing to us time and again.

Believe me,..it matters not if the American people want a Public Health Care Option,..

It only matters if the Health Insurance Companies want a Public Option, and it looks like they dont.

They,..just like Congress and the President, just want to keep shoving their agenda down our throats, regardless what we want.
 cpfstock
Joined: 11/7/2005
Msg: 77
Sell it somewhere else.
Posted: 2/2/2010 10:47:58 AM
Tell me again how good the Canadian system is.

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States.

Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.

"He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done," said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.



Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2510700#ixzz0ePDeiGJb
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 78
view profile
History
Sell it somewhere else.
Posted: 2/25/2010 12:16:43 PM
Sadly many Americans listen to disingenuous talk show hosts, instead of people from Canada.

People I know personally from Canada think the USA is rather nutty on this issue.

I am American and I happen to agree. People in the USA are afraid of their government, and that is why we have so many problems.

So let's see we have a choice between an option that make sure everyone is covered, it will allow our businesses to compete against other countries that have similar systems..

Or we can allow the very few people whom are getting quite wealthy off of rationing care ie people die in droves, so they can get rich. We still end up paying the costs for those people to get rich and the price of health care continues to go through the roof, and eventually our businesses will no longer be able to compete with other countries that do not have to provide extremely overpriced health care coverage to their employees.

Leave it up to the spin machines and propaganda machines to call things socialist and play on American McCarthyism mindset.

It is all about keeping the status quo as usual.

Well the status quo is going to help sink this nation even further.

Wake up America..

The people should not fear the government! It is supposed to be the other way around!

Besides if we are so afraid of a government based public option why not make a public option ran by the people? Have the government collect for it through taxes and relinquish the money to the co-op. All people still covered single payer system not run by the government. It can be ran by the people and we can elect someone to be responsible for oversight.

either way there is little way around it in my view.
 Ghost Reader
Joined: 9/12/2009
Msg: 79
Sell it somewhere else.
Posted: 2/25/2010 2:28:59 PM

The people should not fear the government! It is supposed to be the other way around!

Sorry , but i believe there should be a little "concern" about someone , who would put hundreds of farmers out of work, Simply to "save" a 2 inch minnow ", or a rare "tit mouse", (But hasn't a clue what "intelligence" is doing)
Deciding whether or not i'm "young" enough to receive a heart transplant.
there was once a time , when we were taught , we were the "Government"
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 80
view profile
History
Sell it somewhere else.
Posted: 2/25/2010 7:21:04 PM
LOL farmers got put out of work to feed the free market nuts whom wanted slave labor and no environmental laws in some third world wountry, not for some mouse or minnow.

Factory farms is what we got out of it. Yummy "tomatoes" with fish genes anyone?

******

Simple enough if you are feeling they might ration care under a government option like they are already doing now under insurance companies.

The big difference is now under the insurance companies, they dont care how old you are, and only if you can pay their insane fees for their overpriced care or not. Even then some pay those fees and get dropped or denied coverage for something they even payed for already.

So what you and others are saying is, you would rather have a CEO or a board who's only concern is for profit, in a non democratic corporation, decide whom gets care or not instead. That's whats happening now.

We can easily pass a law that only a doctor can say who and who does not need a surgery. Done deal. Any other fears of the government we can solve right now?

Easy stuff so far. Just need strict guidelines 1st one to add to the list, no denying people based on cost or age, under public option.

Keep it coming we can solve all the concerns the public might have about being apprehensive about a public option so that we can get passed this.
 VVendy
Joined: 6/7/2008
Msg: 81
what is your favorite part and why
Posted: 2/27/2010 2:12:26 PM
of this thread

We need people to become doctors .... because they want to make a difference in this world !!! Not make millions of dollars

the average doctor has a lot of loans to pay back. not just to the banks but ma and pa and the aunt that let them stay as they finished residency.


of the WH Health Care Summit

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/02/25/Health/R/30039/WH+Health+Care+Summit+Members+React+To+Meeting.aspx

7:50 to 8:10 PT is the best part of the summit IMO.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 82
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/16/2010 3:47:09 AM
The kid on his right yawning says it all.
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 83
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/16/2010 8:36:16 AM

President Barack **** Obama told the people in Strongsville, Ohio today that premiums will Fall by 3000% means employers could give out raises.

You left some of it out.

"...Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it’s estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent [sic], which means they could give you a raise...."

So he is saying that premiums "could" fall by as much as 3000%, he never said they would.



Wonder how much taxes will have to go up for the government to enable insurance premiums to fall by 3000%???

Well once they eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance companies probably not very much if any.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/16/2010 10:02:12 AM

So he is saying that premiums "could" fall by as much as 3000%, he never said they would.

Would you care to attempt to explain the math behind a possible 3000% decrease in insurance premiums?
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 85
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/16/2010 10:20:15 AM

Would you care to attempt to explain the math behind a possible 3000% decrease in insurance premiums?

Seeing as I am not the one that has suggested that it may or may not happen I can only direct you to the source of the information.

You would have to ask the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that produced those numbers that the US president was referring to.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 86
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/16/2010 10:52:14 AM

Well saying something could go down by 3000% of anything is quite a promise ...
When there is a cap put on profits of the insurance company, then they can no longer charge us so much for insurance ... which means they will put hospitals and medical providers under pressure to stop charging so much ... which means hospitals (and/or medical providers) eventually will no longer be allowed to charge us $300.00+ for some hospital personnel to come in and put a 5 cent band aid on a boo boo ... that they no doubt created doing an unnecessary test because they didn't check to see if you had the same test done 2 weeks ago.

I'll never forget the time I became so violently ill that I had to go to the emergency room in order to receive IV fluids and for them to stabilize me ... I was getting dehydrated. They decided to keep me for observation and when they found out I use Synthroid, (which I reported when they asked if I use prescription medications) ... instead of calling my physician to confirm my most recent dose, they just ordered an expensive blood test to discover how much I needed. (BTW ... I had my Rx bottle with me at the emergency room ... so it's not like they really didn't know my dose. The physician in charge of me was just too lazy to read my chart. It was easier just to order the test.)

Turns out I had just had the very same test done 3 weeks prior ... my primary care physician had ordered my medication dependent on the test results ... and since it was the same blood test in less than one month ... the insurance denied payment for it and I was charged an outlandish amount of money to run that test.

Since I am an assertive type of person ... went over my hospital bill with a fine-toothed comb ... I was able to hold the hospital responsible for the cost of the test and I might add a number of other unnecessary charges for tests I had not authorized. They actually charged me for medication they did not even dispense.

At any rate, patients do have rights and we don't have to go along with every test a physician orders for us.

The bottom line is that I not only got the hospital bill reduced by quite a bit but my personal bill as well.

I don't know anyone who supports paying higher premiums for less care.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/16/2010 7:17:06 PM

Fact is that President Barack Hussein Obama's schmoozing of this Health Care debacle is not making it any more popular.
"Fact is" ("Seems") you just can't really know for certain if Barack "blessed" "good" "handsome one" OBAMA is or is not making it any more popular.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the vote goes.

Imagine how the vote in November is going to go when all those parents suddenly find out that the Neocons were lying to them ... and their children can no longer be denied medical care ... no matter how sick they get ... AND the insurance companies can't even deny them coverage even if it's something that's been going on their whole life.

Imagine how the vote in November is going to go when all those same people suddenly find out how great it is ... and can't wait to vote in the people who made it possible and know that the same thing is awaiting them down the road.

And just imagine how the vote in November will go when all those "Joe (the illegal) Plumber" big mouth types who have been lied to by the TPM as well as the Neocons ... get out there and start running their big mouths AGAINST all that propaganda they were swallowing while their brethren were stalling in Congress. They are going to be soooooo happy about being lied to.

Someone once told me that he'd rather encounter a smart criminal with a gun than a "dumb" criminal with a gun. He said you stand a better chance with the smart one because there is no reasoning with the "dumb" one. At least you can talk some sense into the smart one, but the "dumb" one is too "dumb" to understand reason.

But then he said, the one thing you never want to do is ... wrong the "dumb" one. The "dumb" one will again not listen to any excuses or reason ... they will just get even with you.

The TPM and the Neocons are taking advantage of the stupidity of their followers and sooner or later (just as "Dumbya's" followers found out) they will find out that they have been bamboozled ... and they will never ... N_E_V_E_R ... let those TPM's or Neocons forget it.

Just sayin' ...
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 88
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/16/2010 7:29:11 PM
Why would the vote in November be affected? Nobody is going to see any of this stuff go into effect until around 2014 even if it does pass.


Except for the US taxpayers paying for it. That starts as soon as possible.

We just have to hope we can vote in some who are smart enough to repeal the stupid thing.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 89
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/16/2010 10:56:40 PM

Why would the vote in November be affected? Nobody is going to see any of this stuff go into effect until around 2014 even if it does pass.
"Seems" Barack " blessed" "good" "handsome one" OBAMA must have been anticipating that statement.

There are a number of provisions that take effect immediately and some that will be retroactive back to January 1, 2010. Not bad ... eh?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-b-larson/he-top-ten-immediate-bene_b_501748.html
The Top Ten Immediate Benefits You'll Get When Health Care Reform Passes

As soon as health care passes, the American people will see immediate benefits. The legislation will:

(1)* Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;

(2)* Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;

(3)* Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;

(4)* Lower seniors prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;

(5)* Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;

(6)* Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;

(7)* Require plans to cover an enrollee's dependent children until age 26;

(8)* Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;

(9)* Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;

(10)* Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.

By enacting these provisions right away, and others over time, we will be able to lower costs for everyone and give all Americans and small businesses more control over their health care choices.

Crossposted on the House Democrat's blog
I put numbers on them so that people could refer to them individually if they want. Apparently it's been posted in a number of other places as well.

Like I said ...
Imagine how the vote in November is going to go when all those parents suddenly find out that the Neocons were lying to them ... and their children can no longer be denied medical care ... no matter how sick they get ... AND the insurance companies can't even deny them coverage even if it's something that's been going on their whole life.

Imagine how the vote in November is going to go when all those same people suddenly find out how great it is ... and can't wait to vote in the people who made it possible and know that the same thing is awaiting them down the road.

And just imagine how the vote in November will go when all those "Joe (the illegal) Plumber" big mouth types who have been lied to by the TPM as well as the Neocons ... get out there and start running their big mouths AGAINST all that propaganda they were swallowing while their brethren were stalling in Congress. They are going to be soooooo happy about being lied to.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 90
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/17/2010 12:31:42 AM

Save your jumping guys for when you get stuck in some medical red tape and can't get a medical procedure you need in a timely manner....
Just more hyperbole and actually quite false.


Right now there are several legal problems with the bill ...
Care to list some valid links for that ... not just TPM and Neocon propaganda ... some real live links. In the meantime, it occurs to me that no congressional bill is perfect and I'm sure if there truly are legal problems with the bill ... they'll deal appropriately with it.

... mostly to do with bribes.
Who has been bribing anyone? Got some links for that? You mean the insurance companies would actually stoop to something like that?

It's going to be a shame to see all this work held up in courts while us taxpayers pay for ????
You mean to say that you have no idea of knowing how much towards your taxes? Who's paying for health care they don't get? Enlighten us.
 motownmaniax
Joined: 8/13/2006
Msg: 91
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/17/2010 2:50:37 AM
I’m actually torn with the bill. Both opponents and proponents make genuine points.

There should be no argument “something” needs to be done to fix our healthcare, however. Systemic problems are too large to ignore any more. We pay way too much of our GDP and get the smallest return of any industrialized nation, and those costs are increasing at a rate that will eat up all our resources. We have way too many people being turned down with preexisting conditions or dropped the minute they get diagnosed with anything severe. We have way too many that “think” they’re covered, but when they get sick find out the fine print says otherwise. We have too many with good coverage that “still” go bankrupt because of the expense. We have an ever-increasing phenomena of businesses either shifting the true costs of healthcare onto workers or dropping coverage altogether because the costs are prohibitive. To save money many younger, healthier people are opting out and willing to take their chances, which only allows insurance providers to shift more cost and higher premiums onto the still insured, as what happened with that ridiculous 39% rate increase in California. Btw, that’s a sneak preview for the rest of us and should scare the hell out of even the most anti-national healthcare critic. When millions show up at emergency room doors as a desperate last resort, guess who pays anyway? All of us.

I could go on and on but everybody should get the point by now.

That said, I’m against any bill 2,400 pages long—a real monstrosity. I know it grew to be that long with all the horse-trading, deal making, and arm-twisting needed between the House, Senate, and final conference versions of the bill. That’s the system we have, though, so it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. In order to get anything passed means compromise and dealing. If Republicans were in control of the process I have little doubt the bill would be huge, too. If we lived in a totalitarian state like China where policies can be mandated without debate people would scream even louder that their elected reps were kept out of the process.

But I fear scrapping everything and starting over after so much work and intense negotiation will only doom the process for another ten years ... years we don’t have.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/17/2010 4:10:44 AM
This article confirms what was known all along.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_fact_check
 motownmaniax
Joined: 8/13/2006
Msg: 93
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/17/2010 4:54:37 AM
Reforming healthcare won’t be easy or painless, and as such I believe no one in “either” party should sugarcoat what it will take. It took decades to get where we’re at now so peddling overnight fixes and expecting quick discounts are silly. But the costs of doing nothing are much greater.

The Cost of Doing Nothing on Health Care
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28abelson.html
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 94
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/17/2010 7:10:12 AM

Yet even if the "Cornhusker Kickback is taken out, which it hasn't been yet, many states are up in arms about some of the mandates of the bill.
I anticipate that somehow the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback" will be taken out, so I'm not concerned about that. Actually, I don't care if it stays in ... because it can be negotiated out later.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-b-larson/he-top-ten-immediate-bene_b_501748.html
The Top Ten Immediate Benefits You'll Get When Health Care Reform Passes

As soon as health care passes, the American people will see immediate benefits. The legislation will:

(1)* Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;

(2)* Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;

(3)* Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;

(4)* Lower seniors prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;

(5)* Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;

(6)* Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;

(7)* Require plans to cover an enrollee's dependent children until age 26;

(8)* Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;

(9)* Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;

(10)* Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.
I can't imagine anyone who would have a problem with the above stipulations ... regardless.

Who would have a problem with item #1 or #2? Or #3 or #4? Or any of the other items?

What would anyone have AGAINST any of that?
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 95
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/17/2010 11:22:43 AM

Some states like Va area already taking measures against the government health care fiasco.
Wait until the people find out what they will truly have ... wait until they find out they are getting immediate benefits. They may want to rethink their actions.

It doesn't surprise me that some have been bamboozled into believing that this is not good for us, but when they find out what benefits they are already going to get ... some even retroactive back to Jan. 1, 2010 ... I have a feeling the states are not going to be able to convince people to support them taking away what they get.

Who would want to give up anything like the following:
As soon as health care passes, the American people will see immediate benefits. The legislation will:

(1)* Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;

(2)* Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;

(3)* Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;

(4)* Lower seniors prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;

(5)* Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;

(6)* Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;

(7)* Require plans to cover an enrollee's dependent children until age 26;

(8)* Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;

(9)* Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;

(10)* Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.

By enacting these provisions right away, and others over time, we will be able to lower costs for everyone and give all Americans and small businesses more control over their health care choices.
 southernlass
Joined: 5/2/2006
Msg: 96
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/17/2010 6:38:21 PM
I was in favor of government health care reform if there was a public option. I don't have health care coverage as I can't afford it. It's people like myself who would have benefitted from the public health option but I believe this is no longer on the table and thus, what good is health care coverage going to do me now if I still can't afford it when all is said and done?

If there is no public health option and universal health care isn't an option, what's the point?
 southernlass
Joined: 5/2/2006
Msg: 97
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/17/2010 8:33:56 PM
If I can't pay the fine, what will they do?
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 98
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/17/2010 9:04:33 PM


If there is no public health option and universal health care isn't an option, what's the point?
Shouldn't have to worry too much longer about not having Health Insurance.
If the bill passes everyone will be madated to have health insurance.
If you don't get health insurance then you will get a nice fine with your income tax.
Are you entirely sure about that? Perhaps even 100% positive?

"Seems" someone may not be totally informed and ... well let's see.

If I can't pay the fine, what will they do?
Good question ...

A friend of mine asked a similar question and so we sat down and went looking for the answer. And we found some helpful information.

My friend (also) cannot afford insurance right now ... at the current cost, not to mention the increasing premiums. (Actually, it's my nephew, but we'll call him "my friend".) He also thought he might get forced to buy it ... no matter what the cost ... and then a different friend said they thought if he can't afford it, he would get "free" insurance.

What we discovered is ... neither assumption is correct.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/… and look for exemptions.

Require that most Americans have a minimum level of health insurance or else pay a penalty.
House version
Includes mandate.

Penalty: Tax equal to 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income over certain thresholds ($9,350 for individuals, $18,700 for couples).

Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship.

Senate version
Includes mandate.

Penalty: $95 a year or 0.5 percent of a household’s income, whichever is greater, in 2014; $495 or 1 percent of income in 2015; $750 or 2 percent of income in 2016> (with a maximum of $2,250 for a family). The penalty would be adjusted for inflation after 2016. No penalty if the cost of cheapest available plan exceeds 8 percent of household income.

Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections, people who can show financial hardship and people with income below 100 percent of the poverty level ($22,050 for a family of four).

********************************
Require most employers to contribute to the cost of coverage for some or all of their employees.
House version
Require employers with annual payrolls of $500,000 or more to offer coverage to employees or pay a new federal tax.

Penalty: Up to 8 percent of wages in payroll taxes. Employers with payrolls of $500,000 to $750,000 would pay 2 percent to 6 percent of wages, and those with payrolls above $750,000 would pay the full 8 percent.

Employers would have to contribute at least 72.5 percent of the premium cost for individuals and 65 percent for families for the lowest-cost plan that meets the minimum benefit requirements set by the government.

Senate version
Would not explicitly require employers to offer coverage. But a company with 50 or more full-time workers would pay a penalty if it does not offer health benefits and if any of the workers obtain subsidized coverage through the new health insurance exchanges.

Penalty: $750 for each full-time worker in the company.

Employers with more than 50 workers that offer coverage would also pay a penalty if any of the workers obtain subsidies to buy insurance. In this case, the penalty would be $3,000 for each employee who receives subsidized coverage or $750 for each full-time worker in the company, whichever is lesser.

Employers who offer coverage would be required to provide vouchers to low- and middle income workers to obtain insurance on their own through the exchanges. People with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) would be eligible for the vouchers if they spend between 8 and 9.8 percent of their income on premiums.

********************************
Create health insurance marketplaces, where individuals and employers can shop for insurance and compare prices and benefits.

House version
Would create a national insurance exchange. States could operate their own exchanges, with federal approval.

Open to people who do not have qualifying coverage through an employer or a public program.

Open to employers with 25 or fewer employees in the first year, 50 or fewer in the second year and 100 or fewer in the third year. The exchange could be expanded to larger employers over time, “with the goal of allowing all employers access.”

Until the exchange is established, a temporary program would provide coverage to “those who have been uninsured for several months or denied a policy because of pre-existing conditions.”

Senate version
States would form their own exchanges. Several states could join together to form a regional exchange.

Open to people who do not have qualifying coverage through an employer or a public program.

Open to employers with 100 or fewer workers, but states could allow employers with 50 or fewer workers to participate until 2016. Starting in 2017, states could allow employers with more than 100 employees to participate in the exchange.

********************************
Create a new government insurance plan> to compete with private insurers.

House version
Public plan would negotiate payment rates with doctors and hospitals (rather than using Medicare rates set by the government).

The government would allocate $2 billion in start-up money, but beneficiary premiums would have to cover the full cost of the plan. The government would also provide loans to start nonprofit insurance cooperatives.

Senate version
Would not create a public plan. The federal Office of Personnel Management, which provides health benefits to federal employees, would sign contracts with insurers to offer at least two national health plans to individuals, families and small businesses. The new plans would be separate from the program for federal employees, and premiums would be calculated separately. At least one of the plans would have to operate on a nonprofit basis.

********************************
Provide tax credits to low- and middle-income people to help them buy insurance through the exchange.

House version
Provide tax credits, on a sliding scale, to people with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) to help pay insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs like co-payments and deductibles.

Households in the lowest income group — those below 150 percent of the poverty level ($33,075 for a family of four) — would pay 1.5 percent to 3 percent of their income on premiums. Health plans would cover 97 percent of the cost of the benefits and annual out-of-pocket spending would be capped at $5,00 a year for individuals and $1,000 for families.

Households in the highest income group eligible for subsidies — those between 350 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level ($77,175 to $88,200 for a family of four) — would pay 11 percent to 12 percent of their income on premiums. Health plans would cover 70 percent of the cost of the benefits and annual out-of-pocket spending would be capped at $5,000 a year for individuals and $10,000 for families.

Senate version
Provide tax credits, on a sliding scale, to people with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) to help pay insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs like co-payments and deductibles.

Households in the lowest income group — those below 150 percent of the poverty level ($33,075 for a family of four) — would pay 2 percent to 4.6 percent of their income on premiums. Health plans would cover 90 percent of the cost of the benefits.

Households in the highest income group eligible for subsidies — those between 350 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level ($77,175 to $88,200 for a family of four) — would pay 9.8 percent of their income on premiums. Health plans would cover 70 percent of the cost of the benefits.

The proposal would limit out-of-pocket spending at $5,950 a year for individuals and $11,900 for families.

********************************
Expand Medicaid to cover millions of additional people, including parents and childless adults who are not eligible under current rules.

House version
Cover everyone with incomes less than 150 percent of the poverty level ($33,075 for a family of four).

Estimated number of new recipients: 15 million.

The federal government would pay all the costs for those who are newly eligible for the first two years and 91 percent of the costs after that.

Senate version
Cover everyone with incomes less than 133 percent of the poverty level ($29,327 for a family of four).

Estimated number of new recipients: 14 million.

From 2014 to 2016, the federal government would pay all of the costs for covering the newly eligible. The share of federal spending would vary somewhat from year to year after 2016, but would average about 90 percent by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Currently, the federal government pays about 57 percent, on average, of the costs of Medicaid benefits. Nebraska is the only state that would receive 100 percent of the cost of expanding Medicaid.

********************************
Require insurance plans to offer a minimum package of health insurance benefits, to be defined by the federal government.

House version
The basic plan would cover 70 percent of the cost of the benefits. Consumers would pay the remainder, in deductibles, co-payments and other charges. But the proposal would limit those out-of-pocket medical costs at $5,000 a year for an individual and $10,000 for a family. The out-of-pocket limits would be reduced for people with incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four).

The exchange would offer three other benefit plans, covering up to 95 percent of costs. The Congressional Budget Office says policies bought in the individual insurance market now average 55 percent to 60 percent.

Senate version
The basic plan would cover 60 percent of the cost of the benefits. The proposal would limit out-of-pocket costs at $5,950 year for an individual and $11,900 for a family.

The exchanges would offer three other benefit plans, covering 70 percent to 90 percent of costs. A plan for catastrophic coverage would be available to people up to the age of 30 and those who are exempt from the requirement to obtain insurance.

********************************
Prohibit insurers from denying coverage or charging higher premiums because of a person’s medical history or health condition.

House version
Premiums for older people cannot be more than double the premium for young adults.

The legislation would strip health insurance companies of their antitrust exemption. It would outlaw price fixing, bid rigging and “market allocations” by companies that sell health insurance or medical malpractice insurance.

Senate version
Premiums for older people cannot be more than three times the premium for young adults.

The legislation would not strip health insurance companies of their longstanding exemption from federal antitrust laws.

Insurers would be immediately prohibited from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children.

Insurers competing in the new exchanges would be required to justify rate increases and those who raise prices excessively could be barred from the exchanges.

Insurers would be required to spend more of their premium revenues — between 80 to 85 cents of every dollar — on medical claims. According to a recent Senate Commerce Committee analysis, the largest for-profit insurance companies spends about 74 cents out of every dollar on medical care in the individual market.

********************************
Prohibit use of federal money for abortions, except as allowed by current law — in cases of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman was in danger.

House version
Health plans could choose whether to cover abortion.

Low- and middle-income people who receive federal subsidies to buy insurance through the exchange could not use the subsidies to pay any part of the cost of a health plan that includes coverage of elective abortions.

The public plan would not provide abortion coverage.

Senate version
Health plans could choose whether to cover abortion or not. But states could prohibit the coverage of abortions by health plans that are offered for sale through the new insurance exchanges.

People who receive federal subsidies to buy insurance could enroll in health plans that cover abortion. But subscribers of health plans that cover abortion would have to make two separate monthly premium payments: one for all insurance coverage except abortion and one for abortion coverage.

Health plans that offer abortion coverage and receive federal subsidies would be required to segregate the federal money into separate accounts and use only the premium money and co-payments contributed by consumers to cover the procedure. State insurance commissioners would police the “segregation of funds.”


And there is much much more there ...
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 99
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/18/2010 11:29:42 AM


If I can't pay the fine, what will they do? (Already answered in Message 164, but just using the question to set up this post).

Not to worry, about 3/4 s of our states don't like the mandate either ...
In other words President Barack Hussein Obama and his elected democratic followers Do Not even have 1/2 the individual states supporting what they are doing, much less 1/2 the American people.
Idaho is just the first state of 37 to have passed such legislation.
Please post a list of the "37 states" that are in the process of passing the legislation mentioned here ... opposing what President Barack "blessed" "good" "handsome one" OBAMA and his elected Democratic followers are supporting. (BTW ... isn't it fun that we get to use the President's middle name with each post and then I get to post the true meaning of it?)

I doubt that it matters if the states support the mandate or not. Since it will not cause anyone any financial devastation, I would say it's a mute point. Also once the people see how the TPM and the Neocons have been lying to them ... they will get on board with the plan. How could they not want "affordable" health care that does not discriminate against them for pre-existing conditions ... and actually reduces the deficit?

... and don't feel that its legal for the federal government to implement such a mandated unconstitutional directive against the citizens of their states.
Where is the proof as to how the mandate is an "unconstitutional directive"? Please post a site for us to go to and find the proof of such a statement.

In anticipation of the above poster not being able to provide us with such a site ... I have found the following:
http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/08/25/is-it-unconstitutional-to-mandate-health-insurance/
Excerpt (towards the close of the article) ...
Under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights” are involved. There may be fundamental rights to decide about medical treatments, but having insurance does not require anyone to undergo treatment. It only requires them to have a means to pay for any treatment they might choose to receive. The liberty in question is purely economic and has none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that invoke Constitutional protection. In short, there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, and so various arguments based on the Bill of Rights fall flat. The closest plausible argument is one based on a federal statute protecting religious liberty, but Congress is Constitutionally free to override one statute with another.

If Constitutional concerns still remain, the simplest fix (ironically) would be simply to enact social insurance (as we currently do for Medicare and social security retirement) but allow people to opt out if they purchase private insurance. Politically, of course, this is not in the cards, but the fact that social insurance faces none of the alleged Constitutional infirmities of mandating private insurance points to this basic realization: Congress is on solid Constitutional ground in expanding health insurance coverage in essentially any fashion that is politically and socially feasible.


So it appears President Barack "blessed" "good" "handsome one" OBAMA and his elected democratic followers ARE NOT acting outside the Constitution by enacting the proposed mandate.
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 100
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/18/2010 1:38:33 PM

Seventy-five percent of Americans are correct in their belief that this insurance mandate is unconstitutional because Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce does not include the power to tell Americans what they must buy.


..and 100% of people that think that an unqualified poll actually represents the opinion of an entire population are incorrect in their assumptions.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option