Congressman Grayson's summary of the President's health reform proposal.

[ProSense]

THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSAL

February 22, 2010

The President’s Proposal puts American families and small business owners in control of their own health care.

• It makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families and small business owners who are priced out of coverage today. This helps over 31 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today – and makes coverage more affordable for many more.
  
  
• It sets up a new competitive health insurance market giving tens of millions of Americans the exact same insurance choices that members of Congress will have.
  
  
• It brings greater accountability to health care by laying out commonsense rules of the road to keep premiums down and prevent insurance industry abuses and denial of care.
  
  
• It will end discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions.
  
  
• It puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years – and about $1 trillion over the second decade – by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse.

PDF

[Schema Thing]

1. thump

[CTLawGuy]

7. UNDER THE BUS! UNDER THE BUS!

haha

[impik]

10. Yep. Warm and cozy here.

[tallahasseedem]

15. LOL!

That's what I was thinking before I even clicked in. Poor guy.

[HughMoran]

25. Hah!

[Whisp]

47. LOL!

omg that cracked me up. thanks

[daleanime]

2. And if it gave us an honest choice...

instead of chaining us to for profit insurance it would be a acceptable piece of legislation.


Without it not so much:banghead:

[ProSense]

4. It does give an honest choice

a non-profit plan, which goes even farther than the plans offered to members of Congress:

More Health Insurance Choices

• Multi-state option. Health insurance carriers will offer plans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees health plans for Members of Congress. At least one plan must be non-profit, and the plans will be available nationwide. This will promote competition and choice.
  
  
• Free choice vouchers. Workers who qualify for an affordability exemption to the individual responsibility policy but do not qualify for tax credits can take their employer contribution and join an exchange plan.

PDF

[daleanime]

9. That's nice....

who runs it? Oh, the insurance companies do it 'under the supervision'. Well that makes all the different in the world:sarcasm:
What? You were serious?


I've got to go now, I'll be back when I stop laughing.

[ProSense]

12. "who runs it? Oh, the insurance companies do it 'under the supervision'." Obviously,

you're not interested in facts just making bogus claims.

[daleanime]

29. "Bogus claims'?

If I'm wrong in my interpretation please say so and then give a better one, but I believe that mine is correct and further more I think you know it.


And given how Washington is run these days who do you think will do the supervising? It always cheaper to let the foxes guard the hen house.



Wish to God that I am wrong and this is a better piece of legislation then it looks, but until thats proven I'll have to go by how it looks.

[daleanime]

40. Still waiting....

:popcorn:

[daleanime]

43. ......

:boring:

[4lbs]

5. So when Grayson votes YEA for it, like he said he would, he'll be another Progressive "hero" that

disappoints you by supporting it?

Just like Howard Dean?

Just like Markos Moulitsas?

Just like Ed Schultz?

Just like Bernie Sanders?

Just like Sherrod Brown?

Just like Lynn Woolsey?

Just like Pete DeFazio?

Just like Al Franken?

Just like Barney Frank?

[daleanime]

8. ????

Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not looking for any 'hero's. What I looking for is an accept means of dealing with a national problem.


Or is it just time to hammer down any little nail that sticks out?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Worth a rec

[drm604]

6. So everyone will have access to a regulated non-profit?

Multi-state option. Health insurance carriers will offer plans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees health plans for Members of Congress. At least one plan must be non-profit, and the plans will be available nationwide. This will promote competition and choice.

Is it just me, or does that sound very close to being a public option?

[druidity33]

27. Kaiser is a Non-Profit

Last i heard, their rates are just as high as everyone elses...

:shrug:

[Cha]

11. Thank you Grayson..a real team playa..playin'

for the best Team.

[JoePhilly]

23. Yup ... fight internally for everything you want ... and then ...

Vote together for as much as you can GET.

The GOP understands this ... we on the left, tend to be idealists, which is great ... but after the internal debate, we need to SHIFT from IDEALISTS to REALISTS ... get as much as we can pass, and MOVE FORWARD.

[Cha]

24. Precisely!

[vaberella]

30. You're right. n/t

[Surya Gayatri]

38. Nicely said Joe...beautifully succinct

summary of "réal politic"--the art of the possible. SG

[D-Lee]

39. Ditto! nt

[freddie mertz]

13. Is this GRAYSON's summery or a summary from the Senate or WH that is available on his site?

I'm asking because it seems to be identical to some other documents I have seen.

Also it is not featured on the front page of his website.

[denimgirly]

14. WOW, even Grayson is for this? Well, if Grayson is for it i will Shut up Now!

Alan Grayson is no selluot and so if he is for it then i will try to hold my tongue now.

[madmom]

16. I have a question about paying for health insurance.....

my daughter is a college student, who lives mainly on financial aid. She has no other income, lives in the dorm, comes home only on breaks. Hubby and I are both retired and on a fixed income, we have insurance through his employer. So if daughter is forced to have health insurance, who is gonna pay for it? We can't, she has no income, this just totally freaks me out because I see no answer to this question no matter how many times I ask it.

[FrenchieCat]

18. She would be eligible for Medicaire,

since she has no income....

That would be my understanding.

[nsd]

19. Medicare is for the elderly. Medicaid is for the poor.

But poverty alone doesn't qualify one for Medicaid; one also needs to meet some other criteria (e.g., disability or having dependent children).

Under this plan, low-income people get federal subsidies to buy health insurance.

[FrenchieCat]

20. When I went to the calculator, it stated that an individual with no income

is eligible for Medicaid which will be government subsidized....i.e., I'm assuming that the Fed reimburses Medicaid.

It states, if one selects the Senate Bill or President's bill option, All individuals and families with incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for Medicaid. Others with higher incomes may also be eligible, depending on rules that vary by state.

You can go there and see: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

[madmom]

21. Thank You!

[tabbycat31]

22. if she's under 26 she could go on your husband's employer's plan

[JoePhilly]

31. The plan allows her to stay on your plan unitl she is 26 ...

If she is 26 or under, she an stay on your plan.

And then ... the mandate is sructured so that those who can't afford it, get subsidies. The mandate is structured to make sure that those who CAN afford insurance actually get it.

[Kablooie]

17. It has flaws. Some big ones. But it is a beginning of needed changes.

If it passes it doesn't mean it can never be amended.

Not easy to do, I'm sure, but easier than if there is nothing to amend.


Does anyone think that starting over again as the GOP wants, and with a new GOP dominated Congress due to the Dems inability to pass anything, is a quicker and easier path to national health care?


If you do, there's a bridge to nowhere in Alaska that I've got for sale here...

[Number23]

26. Rec #23 - I love it when that happens

:)

[Hekate]

28. KnR for Grayson

[goclark]

45. K and R for Grayson ~ a real class act! nt

[mzmolly]

32. A nice complement to FrenchieCat's thread.

Thanks Prosense. :hi:

[Cha]

33. Kick

[eridani]

34. Too bad there is no enforcement specified for the "rules of the road"

As long as it keeps discrimination against older people, it is unacceptable.

[merkins]

35. Isn't This Is A Deceitful Post ? ??

By the looks of it Prosense you seem to be framing this in an underhand way and confuse people into thinking Congressman Grayson is on board with the President's prosposal described in the PDF. The PDF link where you got this from is at the bottom of his http://grayson.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=4712">Health Care Reform webpage under the heading: Related Files. You know, like an appendix to reference other issues and positions, Not Congressman Grayson's position. As he states above in that webpage: "I support a strong public option. We need to increase competition, especially in areas where one or two insurance companies control 80% or more of the health insurance market. We need universal, comprehensive, affordable health care in America."

[sabrina 1]

36. That's what I found when I went to the site.

This doesn't appear to be Grayson's words, but a memo explaining the bill.

Having said that, the reason I was not among those who were excited about Grayson's own bill, was because first of all, it will most likely never get anywhere. However, it gives him credibility with the most resistent opponents of the Senate Bill. Once they are convinced he can be trusted, then he can support the bill, and presumably win over the 'left'.

If that's the game, it won't work for most people because no matter who supports it, it is a bad bill.

He's smart, smarter than most, he is also sincere, and I believe he does believe in a Medicare for All system. But he's also made some bad decisions. One of them was voting for Daryl Issa's 'Defund Acorn' Bill. He has never explained that vote.

Nor has he commented on the recent ruling by a Federal judge agreeing with ACORN, that that bill was unconstitutional. Only 75 Democrats voted against it. That he was not among them was a huge disappointment.

He's fun, he's great when he goes after Republicans, but he's a politician. I will reserve judgement on him until later. If the Senate bill passes, and since it's bought and paid for at such a high price by the Insurance Ind., I'm sure it will, without a PO, it will be interesting to see what happens to Grayson's Bill. If he forgets about it, then we'll know whether he was sincere or whether it was just a ploy.

Tomorrow I will call his office to ask why he voted with Republicans to defund ACORN, especially since he later said the bill was a Bill of Attainder and unconstitutional.

[suzie]

42. So, when Alan Grayson votes for something that you dislike, he's a really questionable

guy you're totally unsure about--because he's one of those dastardly politicians.

But when Dennis Kucinich votes against things that you like...well, Dennis is so wonderful and special and the best person in Congress, correction, the only DECENT person in Congress. So, unlike Grayson, Dennis must have some kind of important principle that he's following.

Dennis Kucinich couldn't be voting against health care reform because he's still totally anti-choice. No, if someone suggests that, they're met with ridicule. But Grayson, now with him, whatever he's doing might be just a ploy.

Because Kucinich is not one of those vile politicians like Grayson.

Unbelievable.

[freddie mertz]

48. I pointed that out the other day.

See above, where I politely asked for clarification.

And crickets chirped.

[jeanpalmer]

37. "This helps over 31 million

Americans afford health care who do not get it today...." This is just misleading hype. Many, probably most, uninsured people get health care today, and pay for it themselves. And it will increase their costs if they're forced to buy insurance, even if they get subsidized insurance. Those just above the FPL limits who don't get subsidies are going to pay a high price in terms of the percentage of their income required to pay for insurance. They're going to have to use the money they now spend on rent, a mortgage, a car etc. to pay for overpriced health insurance. There's obviously a tradeoff that these pr statements don't acknowledge. It's dishonest of the WH to make these statements.

And the part about saving "1 trillion over the second decade" is laughable. They can't accurately estimate next year's budget deficit.

[Cha]

41. Kick

[zalinda]

44. Not quite true.......

Yes, this is on Grayson's website. You have to go looking for it and click links to find it. And no where does it say that Grayson wrote it, or is for it or has any opinion on it.

What he is saying is this:

"Congressman Grayson introduces a Public Option Act. Details here.

Summary of the President's proposal for health care reform (released February 22, 2010)

Read the House Health Care Plan, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), by clicking here.

Here is a summary of the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962).

Read the Harvard study on the 44,000 people in America that die annually from a lack of health insurance.

Annual Deaths In Congressional Districts Due To Lack Of Health Care

Annual Deaths By State & Senator Due To Lack Of Health Care

The Public Option is just that, an option. If you currently have health insurance and like it, you can keep it. However, if you do not have any coverage (47 million people in America do not), or are unhappy with your healthcare provider, you will have another choice. The idea is to simply expand the Medicare network to everyone, and then charge them a fair premium for their coverage. In turn, this will provide competition with the existing providers who currently hold monopolies or oligopolies in most states. In many parts of the country, 80% of the healthcare market is controlled by one or two insurance companies.

Currently one-third of the nation is under federal or state care. The expansion of the Medicare network is what provides value to the Public Option. The government spent millions of dollars and decades of effort to build an excellent network of doctors, hospitals, and labs. The Public Option allows the other two-thirds of Americans to benefit from this investment. If you already have Medicare, the only thing that changes are your co-payments for routine care, which will be eliminated, and the infamous “donut hole,” which will disappear.

The Public Option will not cover illegal aliens, ration health care, or create "death panels." These are paranoid delusions, promoted by fear-mongers. They simply aren’t true.

Most providers offer all the healthcare you need, as long as you don't need it. With this legislation, you cannot be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies will not be allowed to cut you off if you reach some arbitrary limit on medical expenses. Also providers will be required to spend 85% of insurance premiums on your care. Medicare spends 97%. The average for private insurance companies right now is 70%. The other 30% goes toward overhead, paperwork, and profit. That’s one reason insurance company profits have increased 800% in the last 8 years. We can no longer afford the status quo.

The Public Option provides real coverage and peace of mind. So, will you be better off or worse off with it? Now that you have the facts, you can decide. "

The above was taken DIRECTLY from his website. http://grayson.house.gov/healthcare/

zalinda

[Cleobulus]

46. Who gives a shit about coverage, what about paying for care itself?

What use is it to have a health insurance plan you can't afford to use?