Without the Health Reform Insurance companies would have

[Naturalist111]

collapsed and only the super rich would have had health insurance within 10 yrs. Millions of baby boomers are needing health care and more to come. The insurance companies would have collapsed like banks. Why do you think that this was so important if that wasn't the case?

[kestrel91316]

1. With this bill I will finally be able to afford healthcare - and I mean a GOOD policy.

I qualify for huge subsidies.

Do you want to take that away from me? I haven't had insurance nor seen a doctor at all in 5 years, and am 53.

Go ahead and complain. I'm gonna keep working for an eventual Single Payer plan, because this one still suffers from the flaw that our dollars are enriching people who have not earned them. But for now I get access to healthcare.

[Naturalist111]

2. I am glad you will have good health care now

[kestrel91316]

11. Subsidies won't kick in for 4 years, apparently. My income will certianly be up SOME by then,

but just the idea that if it's not, good insurance will still be in reach by than is enough to keep me going.......

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WolverineDG]

10. Don't worry about the assholes

I got called an elitist freeper for suggesting that town halls give priority seating to those who had a photo ID or voter registration card showing that they actually lived in the district before letting anyone else in. Obviously, I'm an elitist freeper because I support excluding the minute number of felons who happen to be extremely poor senior citizens & therefore can't register to vote or afford a driver's license. :eyes:


dg

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Naturalist111]

17. Geez, I meant that I am glad that you will have good health care

now! No hidden message. Not sarcasm. You haven't read my posts have you?

[kestrel91316]

20. I hope you didn't think I was responding to you. You haven't been mean.

That OTHER person was.

[Naturalist111]

45. Good!

[Oregone]

5. "I qualify for huge subsidies."

You think that will afford you a "good" policy? If you are that poor, do you think you can afford above a "bronze" plan with subsidies?

[kestrel91316]

9. I have already looked at the numbers. Yep. I'll be able to afford a decent plan.

Plus, eventually preventive care and screening tests will be 100% covered with no applicable deductible or copay, and that's about all the healthcare I can forsee needing until, oh, about 2030.

But you go ahead and PISS ON ME, after I have been so happy for the 32 million but doubtful I would be helped.

[Oregone]

13. No, Im just surpised is all that they are handing out need based subsidies to people who can afford

above what they determine is the minimum need.

[kestrel91316]

21. Well, no need to attack me like I'm some welfare cheat, dear.

I'm just going by what the calculator said I could qualify for when it was posted here this AM.

But carry on with thinking I am somehow undeserving of a subsidy, even though you know nothing about me.

[Oregone]

23. Look, I really think you are projecting, big time

Because Ive really done no such thing. This isn't about *you*. It was an observation about policy

A thought behind government intervention, when they create a minimum standard for a necessary service, is that they would only intervene insofar as needed to allow someone to obtain such a standard (because after all, that is the level that they deem as necessary, and further help would therefore be considered wasteful).

It would follow that income based subsidies going to people in need would only effectively help people obtain the standard level the government sets, because their ability to go beyond that with the help of the subsidization suggests their need is overestimated. So, in many ways, the ability to buy beyond "bronze" suggests that the level of subsidization set by this program is in fact wasteful according to the very standards the government has set (BTW, I don't personally agree with such standards that the government set in the first place).

So will you be purchasing a "silver" level plan with your estimates, or higher? (now that question related to *you*)

[kestrel91316]

27. FYI, I will now be able to afford..........

the el cheapo Kaiser $200/mo plan, but only when the 85% subsidy kicks in in 4 years, sooner if my business income improves. If it improves, then the subsidy will help me get an even better plan down the road.

I don't know what metal color you consider that. It's their cheapest, and it is FABULOUS compared to nothing. If you've never faced the menopausal years without any insurance you really don't know what frightening is. I have a family history of breast cancer, have had no children, and haven't had a mammogram since 2004.

But feel free to attack me.

BTW, I don't think there should be ANY tiers. Everyone should be able to buy into the same level of coverage as a birthright, and I am not talking about the basic chintziest plan. But that isn't the system we have now.

Nobody is a bigger supporter of Single Payer than me, but I am not stupid. I am gonna utilize what is available to me NOW.

[Oregone]

29. Well, now Im confused

I originally asked:

"If you are that poor, do you think you can afford above a "bronze" plan with subsidies?"

'you said:

"I have already looked at the numbers. Yep. I'll be able to afford a decent plan."

Then now you say:

"FYI, I will now be able to afford..........the el cheapo Kaiser $200/mo plan"

So, do you know what the actuarial value of that plan is? What will be the co-pays and deductibles.


"it is FABULOUS compared to nothing"

Depends. If you can't afford to use it, you are not only shit-out-of-luck, but you've already put some money on the table. Its like having to fold before the river in poker.


"I don't think there should be ANY tiers"

Me neither. Its beyond disgusting that its will be so with this bill. It reinforces, by law, the correlation between access to care and wealth.

[kestrel91316]

32. 1) What is a bronze plan? Kaiser doesn't have metal colors.

2)I will be able to afford a decent plan. The el cheapo kaiser plan, beiing with a NONPROFIT, is actually decent. Not great, but decent, according to my standards, which have changed over the years due to lack of any coverage at all.

3) Don't presume to tell me what I should consider fabulous.

4) Stop trying to pick a fight with me just because I refuse to jump on your anti-Obama bandwagon of hate and disruption.

[Oregone]

35. Bronze will be the lowest level plan; what most of the poor with afford will subsidies

(d) Levels of Coverage-

(1) LEVELS OF COVERAGE DEFINED- The levels of coverage described in this subsection are as follows:

(A) BRONZE LEVEL- A plan in the bronze level shall provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan.

(B) SILVER LEVEL- A plan in the silver level shall provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan.

(C) GOLD LEVEL- A plan in the gold level shall provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 80 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan.

(D) PLATINUM LEVEL- A plan in the platinum level shall provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 90 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan.

(2) ACTUARIAL VALUE-

(A) IN GENERAL- Under regulations issued by the Secretary, the level of coverage of a plan shall be determined on the basis that the essential health benefits described in subsection (b) shall be provided to a standard population (and without regard to the population the plan may actually provide benefits to).

(B) EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS- The Secretary may issue regulations under which employer contributions to a health savings account (within the meaning of section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) may be taken into account in determining the level of coverage for a plan of the employer.

(C) APPLICATION- In determining under this title, the Public Health Service Act, or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 the percentage of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under a group health plan or health insurance coverage that are provided by such plan or coverage, the rules contained in the regulations under this paragraph shall apply.

(3) ALLOWABLE VARIANCE- The Secretary shall develop guidelines to provide for a de minimis variation in the actuarial valuations used in determining the level of coverage of a plan to account for differences in actuarial estimates.

(4) PLAN REFERENCE- In this title, any reference to a bronze, silver, gold, or platinum plan shall be treated as a reference to a qualified health plan providing a bronze, silver, gold, or platinum level of coverage, as the case may be.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:1149

Do you understand what that means? The means after your premiums (which will be subsidized), the plan you receive will be designed to make sure you pay out-of-pocket 40% of the costs. What happens if you need a $20000 surgery? You'll probably pay $8000. What happens if you need $100,000 cancer treatment? You'll probably pay $40000

Why is this a problem? Because the people on the subsidized rolls who cannot afford insurance in the first place cannot afford such out of pocket expenses to use their insurance. In fact, many people, even up to 400% poverty, will struggle with the co-pays and deductibles associated with normal care, year after year. Its a pitiful level of coverage.


"2) I will be able to afford a decent plan. The el cheapo kaiser plan, beiing with a NONPROFIT, is actually decent."

I am glad to hear this will be good coverage for you. Unfortunately, many in actual need will not be so lucky, and those were the people this reform was supposed to help.


"3) Don't presume to tell me what I should consider fabulous."

Don't mistake policy analysis and some information as anyone telling you how to perceive insurance. If you want to perceive low actuarial valued plans as fabulous, all the power to you.


"4) Stop trying to pick a fight with me just because I refuse to jump on your anti-Obama bandwagon of hate and disruption"

There is no bandwagon here. I'm beyond ambivalent about Obama. I'm more passionate about policy. I truly feel, if you think I'm picking a fight, than you are projecting a bit.

[kestrel91316]

36. Go worry about Canadian healthcare and quit trying to harrass Americans

about ours. You've got a lot of nerve.

[Oregone]

40. As an American, and a father of Americans, I have every right to analyze American policy

But please be aware that attacking me for my country of residence does nothing, whatsoever, to refute what I say. In fact, in response from actual quotes from the health care bill, it makes you look silly.

Silliness should be discouraged on a Democratic board. You should represent intellectualism and open mindedness on behalf of the party.

If you are that offended by me telling you what a "bronze" plan was, you should not have asked. I too find the notion apprehensible.

[kestrel91316]

22. The subsidies are on a sliding scale of percentages based on where your income

falls on the scale. If you don't like it, join the Republicans and set about repealing it.

[Oregone]

25. I understand that

But it would follow that if the government sets a minimum standard of an insurance policy, it is only efficient to help people meet that standard (and not beyond). Subsidizaiton beyond a standard can very well be considered wasteful


To be honest, I have real issues with the subsidies, in that they are essentially going to private, for-profit, inefficient companies that provide services the government could provide much cheaper. Its tough to reconcile that with the fact they will aid people, but such a conflict would not exist absent of a private market reform (which is the ultimate problem)

[kestrel91316]

28. So, we with a lesser income will just have to settle for a few crumbs

tossed our way and accept a borderline useless catastrophic-only policy????? LOL

I betcha I know what kind of insurance coverage and income YOU have.

I don't happen to believe in medical insurance at all. I think it is pure evil to profit from disease and suffering unless you personally are providing care or ancillary services. But the fact remains THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW. We DO NOT HAVE SINGLE PAYER.

It's probably real easy to disagree with subsidies when you yourself have insurance and don't need them, or are young and not faced with the very real possibility of cancer within a few years.

[Oregone]

30. "I betcha I know what kind of insurance coverage and income YOU have"

Firstly, it doesn't matter. This is called a circumstantial ad hominem.

Secondly, I have single-payer provincial care FYI. I moved, for the betterment of my family, after saving money for a few years to immigrate by not buying private for-profit health insurance in America. I couldn't of done that and been socially mobile as a self-employed business man.


"So, we with a lesser income will just have to settle for a few crumbs"

By law, pretty much. The law sets the tiers up in the exchange. Don't look at me.


"We DO NOT HAVE SINGLE PAYER."

And you will not. The most liberal party supports a bill that establishes tiered coverage in an exchange, utilizes an economic rationing model, and preserves capitalistic private providers. The country isn't even moving in that direction...not an inch.


"It's probably real easy to disagree with subsidies when you yourself"

Again, you are attacking my position by saying my circumstances make it in my interest to have such a position. This is a weak argument.

As I mentioned, I'm conflicted, and its not a black and white issue. It is public monies being spent inefficiently, that will in some part be distributed to private shareholders that do nothing to contribute to health care in America. On the other hand, it can be helpful to people in need. But before I can accept the argument of it being a "necessary evil", it was not necessary to pursue a reform that preserve the capitalistic structure and deemed their massive expenses as permissible (and thereby a cost the rich and poor alike will be responsible in paying for)

[kestrel91316]

34. Oh, wait. Let me get this right. You are complaining about MY country's

healthcare reform bill and haranguing me when it appears that it will allow me to have insurance for the first time in 5 years and yet YOU LIVE IN CANADA?????????? And have Canadian healthcare??????

Oh, that's rich.

A Canadian who opposes American healthcare reform comes here and complains when a Little Person (moi) is happy to get thrown some crumbs.

:wtf:

[Oregone]

37. Yes, I have a right to care about policy in a country that my children and I are citizens of

"who opposes American healthcare reform"

I don't oppose reform. Ive been a proponent of real reform for years, before becoming an expat and seeking an egalitarian system


"complains when a Little Person (moi) is happy to get thrown some crumbs"

Im not complaining about you recieving "crumbs", but rather, the pitiful amount of such and the other market implications of this bill. Essentially, you are being sold a bad bill of goods as "progress", and sometimes a little objective advice on the issue should be welcomed, straw man aside.

There was a reason Kennedy and the Democrats fought this reform off in the 70's, and it wasn't because they didn't care about you.

[kestrel91316]

42. The right to a paid-for annual physical and screening blood tests and pap smear and

mammogram and colonoscopy when I am due as part of whatever tiny policy I get is NOT a bad bill of goods and I seriously resent your attitude that I should turn my nose up at it.

Unlike SOME people, I can't just run away to another country to take advantage of their health care system. I'm stuck HERE, and what we have today is a hell of a lot better than what we had one week ago.

My assistant, who has a serious genetic PEC which requires expensive ongoing care, will very soon be going back on her parents' policy so she can get decent care rather than the minimal she got with her crappy policy after being booted off the parents' policy due to age (she is 24). I suppose folks like you would prefer that she be denied any such opportunity and just wait patiently for this fabled single payer thing to drop from the sky..........

[Oregone]

44. And if they find something with those tests?

Ca-ching....fork over the 40% (yep, not going to happen). The free preventive is great, otherwise.


"I suppose folks like you would prefer that she be denied any such opportunity and just wait patiently for this fabled single payer thing to drop from the sky"

I suppose folks like you would rather just make up other's views?

Hey, do you think "bronze" plans are still fabulous?

[midnight]

6. What about these citizens?

The bill will not bring down premiums significantly, and certainly not the $2,500/year that the President promised.

Annual premiums in 2016, status quo / with bill:

Small group market, single: $7,800 / $7,800

Small group market, family: $19,300 / $19,200

Large Group market, single: $7,400 / $7,300

Large group market, family: $21,100 / $21,300

Individual market, single: $5,500 / $5,800*

Individual market, family: $13,100 / $15,200*

4. The bill will make health care affordable for middle class Americans.
The bill will impose a financial hardship on middle class Americans who will be forced to buy a product that they can’t afford to use.
A family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income — out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible.

5. This plan is similar to the Massachusetts plan, which makes health care affordable. Many Massachusetts residents forgo health care because they can’t afford it.
A 2009 study by the state of Massachusetts found that:

21% of residents forgo medical treatment because they can’t afford it, including 12% of children
18% have health insurance but can’t afford to use it. http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

[kestrel91316]

14. Blah blah blah. Lots of numbers, no actual human beings in there.

My young ASSISTANT, meanwhile, who has a chronic inherited PEC and a horrible ins policy at the moment, will be able to get back onto her family's policy which will allow her much better access to care because of much lower deductible and copays.

Shall I tell her that you and your little friends are NOT happy for her, too???

[Oregone]

15. Yes, no humans to turn into political footballs to kick around, instead of debating the stats

[Donnachaidh]

18. and as an employer you get to reap the benefits?

Wow -- that's so helpful to you...... :eyes: Let's see - "huge benefits" (your terminology, not mine), get's to pocket money normally spent on giving employees health insurance -- say -- that's a double dip for you!

Congrats! :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kestrel91316]

33. I don't provide medical insurance benefits to my employees.

I can't afford them for myself. How could I possibly provide them for others?

How is possibly getting a subsidy for my own insurance in the future plus being an employer who doesn't offer medical benefits "double dipping"? Is it now a crime to be an employer?

The only money being pocketed is in someone's fevered imagination.

[amborin]

19. that's very short-term thinking, and looking at it mainly in terms of personal benefits

in the short term, some people will indeed benefit from hcr (though for many of these, the 'benefits' will not kick in for 4 yrs)

but longer term, and not much longer term, the real damage will be apparent:

millions of people will not be able to afford the premiums or the co-pays, rendering their insurance useless

it will push many working families to the brink b/c the subsidies are not high enough; they'll still have to pay a whopping amount each year, for mediocre (at best) coverage

millions with "cadillac" plans (not really such at all) lose those benefits and get clobbered with a tax (the one Obama bashed McCain for touting)

without any cost controls, insurance prices will RISE, continuously

etc........................


this is another sea change in the US political economy: akin to SCOTUS ruling: it forces individuals to purchase a product from a private corporation

this HCR was a HUGE subsidy to private corporations and big pharma



worst of all: passaage of this HCR forecloses on ANY possiblity of genuine health care reform

we needed a bill with a robust PUblic Option

which Obama had campaigned on

we're left with a BAD bill, whose disadvantages VASTLY outweigh any benefits


it sounds as if you are interpreting this hcr in very personal terms: what's good for you, personally, and those you, personally, know

it's important to look at this bill's effects on the larger society; and that effect is very negative

[kestrel91316]

26. Ok, now pay REAL close attention:

For the HUNDREDTH TIME: this bill has plenty of flaws, which will become apparent over time. If they are sufficient to make things worse than they are now, god forbid, or even fail to improve things much, people are going to be so angry and feel so cheated BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES that they will be demanding Single Payer in numbers that simply can't be ignored.

I have said for days now that I am extremely happy for the 32 million people who were gonna be helped, even when I though i probably wouldn't be. Only this Am did I use the calculator and found that I would be able to get a subsidy that would allow me to get a decent policy in all likelihood.

If you want to imply I am self-centered and selfish about this matter, you are DEAD WRONG and OWE ME AN APOLOGY.

[amborin]

43. okay, well i apologize! i misunderstood your post

but i think you are overly optimistic (naive, really) to think this bill will bring the benefits you expect

and when the really damaging consequences kick in, those who foisted this bill on voters will be long gone to lucrative lobbyist careers or an affluent private life

the impetus for a strong public option existed in 2009

Obama campaigned on it, and it had widespread support among voters, including indies, who know competition holds down prices

this historic opportunity for real reform was cynically abandoned

[ejpoeta]

41. i was never thrilled with the bill in general, but i am glad for the changes that will in fact help

all of us. This is at least something. and i hope that we will not give up on the single payer because that is what we need. glad this will help you.

[midnight]

4. I agree with your assessment that these leeches were going down like the banks.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. And where do you think they'll be in ten years now?

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/05/27/health-insurance-profits-soar-as-industry-mergers-create-near-monopoly/

They were nowhere NEAR collapse. There was a slight decline in profits in the last year - as millions of people were thrown out of work and lost their insurance - but thanks to this 'reform' the insurance cartel is set in concrete with NO chance of competition against it. It will continue to plunder our economy until the entire economy collapses, taking them with it. Of course, the billionaire execs won't be hurting when that happens. The rest of us are fucked.

This is unsustainable. The mandated purchase of private insurance, propped up with subsidies paid for by taxpayers, will have NO serious cost controls. Even the ballyhooed caps are worthless because, even if they work exactly as claimed with 80% of premiums going back into health care payments, the only way to increase profits then would be to inflate the cost of the healthcare itself, meaning more unnecessary and redundant tests, paying inflated prices for materials, and even unnecessary operations - such as the absurdity of (what is it now?) 60% of all live births are by Caesarian?

The insurance companies will not collapse until they collapse the entire economy. THEY are the reason that health care is unaffordable.

[Naturalist111]

16. Bullseye!!!!

[Subdivisions]

31. I read a piece a week or so ago that the health insurance industry is/was

in a "death spiral". Can't readily find that article right now, but here is another that discusses this "death spiral":

http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/02/16/private-health-insurance-industry-in-%E2%80%98death-spiral%E2%80%99/

[kestrel91316]

38. Fine with me. IIRC, the HCR law requires all ins co's to set up a nonprofit plan

in addition to their profit plans. This will be the END of for-profit plans, and from there we easily get to the end of medical insurance altogether and just have single payer.

People hate the ins co's and would never spend a dime on for-profit plans if they had a reasonable alternative.

[liberal_at_heart]

39. I've got a five year plan to get the hell out of this country

I'm going somewhere where they know what universal healthcare means. We can't even get a public option let alone universal healthcare.