The HCR

Interviewing the citizen on the street about what it means:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uajSiDoolA
- via foundingbloggers

At the end, though, is the key quote:

 

Heh, my officemate is a Russian immigrant. He pretty much says the same thing as that Swedish guy. Yeah the American spirit is slowly but surely being squashed by all of those who think everyone is entitled to the same thing. Someday there will be no reason to be responsible for yourself or to try to actually make something of yourself. Se la vie.

 

Spencer... what am I to believe, the spin they put on it.. or what they tell their base support?

If this lives, in ten years there'll be no more 'competition' at all in the Health insurance industry.

You need to learn to extrapolate the meaning of control mechanisms. What is the penalty for not providing health insurance? For not buying health insurance? Got a clue?

The whole thing isnt about 'Health Care' it's about power and economic control by means of another entitlement.

 

I'm gonna join Hatter and laugh.



:lol:

 

I'm a registered Democrat and was really exited about this push to improve the Health Care system. Unfortunately, like No Child Left Behind, the intent was admirable by the implementation was abysmal.

Why, you ask?

I'm Middle Class, the sole wage earner for a family of five. I have Health Insurance through my employer, who pays 75% of the premium, down from 80% the prior year.

This new law imposes increased costs on Health Insurance companies (not being able to turn down for pre-existing conditions, etc.); they are simply going to pass on these increased costs to the consumer. I would not be surprised at all if the premiums increased 30% next year. In reaction, my employer will reduce their percentage - even meeting approximately half-way and they cover 65%, that's still over a 12% increase in their cost (which impacts raises, new hires, etc.). On my end, my costs will go up 82% - that's HUNDREDS of dollars per month more I'll be paying for the same coverage.

So where exactly is that money supposed to come from?

My wife starts work in the Fall, as my youngest will be starting full day Kingergarten. We were hoping to use that money to pay off some bills and start savings. Now, much of it will go just to keep our heads above water; if she gets a job at the school, the lack of Summer income may mean we have to give up one of our two vehicles.

And, selfishly, what more do I get out of the bill? Nothing. I just get more expensive health insurance.

Oh, and as for the "if you don't pay for insurance, it only costs you $50 a month." I can still remember when I was in my early 20s, a struggling waiter, living off my tips - not even week to week but night to night. I spent a total of $115 in health care costs over a 3 year period (I got sick once and got a prescription for antibiotics). $50 a month would've meant I didn't eat for 2 weeks, or didn't put gas in my car for the month. A tax benefit you say? Great, I can eat in April...

 

Well, Andy, while the Alinsky-ites are laffing, you bring up good points.. but you didnt mention that your employer might just do away with health coverage altogether. What are the penalties per employee of not offering?

- Note the bill was made 'revenue/deficit-neutral' by cutting Medicare payments to physicians. We know THAT's gonna be taken care of later, cause a lot of docs were bailing out even before that.

So, yes... the Insurers are going to raise their rates just as they did in California where the state mandated continuing coverage after separation.. so the dems can then say: 'See.. told you they were a bunch of money-grubbers!'
Dont worry though.
- - - - -- - - - - - -
Alinsky paraphrased:
"I can hand a capitalist a stack of money on Friday and he'll accept it, knowing full well I'll denounce him on Saturday and evxecute him on Monday."
- - - - - - - -- - - - - -

 

My employer has well over a thousand employees, so no, they're not going to remove health care coverage (if nothing else, they know they'll lose their top 200 employees and be out of business in 6 months).

Overall, I don't think the employer provisions in the bill are terrible. Certainly not perfect, but I think few standard companies will feel a major pinch because of the change. Where I do fear a hit is with restaurants and other companies who have primarily tipped or part-time employees as I can't find any provision that doesn't count them as anything other than equal to a full time employee. Those businesses with "about 50" employees will cut staff to below the threshold and take the quality of service hit.

 

Like the left did with regard to Bush? The fringe right that you describe are more likely to draw their cues from Art Bell than Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. Just saying.

 

So no raises and layoffs. Check.

LOL! If you make them insure people (who need a lot of services) that they currently don't, their costs are going to go up. It takes an awful lot of healthy people to balance out someone with an annual 7 figure medical bill.

It may make Hospitals more profitable, but how will this help me? They're still underpaid by Medicare so will still need to pad what they require in payment from insurance.

Right, so I can go with the low cost Medicare option in which doctors get paid even less than the Insurance companies pay them, resulting in more doctors changing professions, resulting in fewer doctors. So you're saying my choices are more expensive medical care or no medical care? Check.

Oh, so if your costs are 8.1% and your parents are dead or overseas you're still stuck with a $695 fine if you can't afford health insurance (which, doing the math, is going to happen in many major metros due to cost of living). Oh and by the way, the subsidies are tax credits which, for you typical waiter, will do nothing more than pay the taxes on their tips (as most waiters owe taxes as their paychecks don't cover the taxes on their tips).

Oh I actually like the age 26 rule but the problem with the consumer protections is that they mandate increased costs to the insurance companies, which will result in higher premiums. You can't just mandate higher costs to a company and expect them not to pass on that cost to the consumer. i.e., it fixed the hot button news story items (poor Mrs. Potts had her insurance canceled because she got sick) without at all addressing any of the root causes of our high insurance costs.

Some simple equating of X tipped/PT employees to a FT employee for the count would've fixed 80% of it.

The more root cause issues of Tort Reform and Medicine Patents were not addressed at all. Instead we got a series of well-meaning but misplaced band-aids on top of a broken system.

 

Spencer. I guess we just have different backgrounds and different experiences because I disagree with most of what you posted.

If you push more costs on employees, it will effect pay levels and employment levels. It may actually result in MORE unensured people.

If you push more costs on to Health Insurance companies, they will pass on those costs, with their standard mark-ups, to the consumer.

Hospitals getting paid will not necessarily result in lower costs; they have internal customers (nursing unions, etc.) who they will have to satisfy with that increased profit before anything is passed on to the consumer. Plus, think of it this way: do you think the insurance companies will pay them the same rates they do today? They also know they don't have to account for a 15% non-payment rate.

Currently, malpractice insurance accounts for 30-50% of the salaries of doctors; with no action on this and a higher percentage of customers being Medicare customers, fewer people will be able to afford to be doctors. Hospitals are not equipped to be the primary care providers (volume), so, while most applicants today are turned away from medical school, the reason for that is that it is viewed as a profitable profession. Combine heavy student loan debt with outrageous malpractice insurance and Medicare rates that don't meet cost, and you will see a major impact on the number of doctors. There are already states who do not have enough OBGYNs to meet the demands of the population (primarily because OBGYN malpractice insurance is the most expensive form) and this will only get worse with this bill.

As for the "And honestly if health insurance represents less then 8% of your income then you need to man up and get yourself insured." I guess you've never been so poor you've had to choose between eating and putting gas in your car. I have. My bills ate up 90% of my income, yet I wouldn't have been exempt.

 

Blugrass Bummer

------------------------------------------
{Massachusetts} won’t list health insurance plans in rate dispute

--------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg: AT&T, Deere CEOs Called by Waxman to Back Up Health-Bill Costs

heh... “material effect” Go figger!
She means to the corporate bottom line. They got that covered, elsewhere.
"It's good to be a Friend of the King!"

 

HCR: More Dems like her needed

Shea-Porter challenged at health care forum Londonderry crowd challenges Shea-Porter

She's wrong.. but at least she studied the bill and can take controversy without running away to hide.

Just on the 'savings from preventative care' It saves diddly!

I mean how many studies need to be done?!!!!

 

RE: HCR: More Dems like her needed

Yeah - having health insurance doesn't mean you use it any more than you absolutely have to. I can't think of much better places to spend that $20 deductible (like gas for my car).

 

I SHOULD link to a video of Henry 'fruitbat' Waxman all but calling those companies robber baron fat cat capitalist pigs, but I wont. If you look on YouTube, it's there.

I REALLY wanted that hearing to happen. I REALLY wanted Waxman to be stupid enough to try to politicize the write-downs.

But that's why even idiot politicians have staff and evidently one of them was smart enough to actually look into corporate tax law.

So .. Waxman.. as he so often does, cringes back with a feeble 'Never Mind'.
Well, like they use to say "What you see is what you get"

Now... you tell me: Want me to point out everything ELSE that has changed since the thing passed?

Want me to point out that the Administration got a report on the true fiscal costs and hid it?

Actually how about one of you supporters posting some GOOD news to come out of the passage of the bill?