I don't get it. Why is the government going to tax me for HCR to correct

[Raven]

a problem that I didn't create and then take my money and pay the insurance companies, drug companies and hospitals who did create the problem? Something is really wrong with this picture. How does this make any sense at all and what happened to the party that I trusted to do the right thing? How do these people expect to be reelected? Where do they think people are going to find the money to pay this? What planet are they living on?

[anonymous171]

1. The capitol should be moved to fucking Montana or something

It needs to be as far away from Wall Street as logistically possible.

[truedelphi]

71. I was thinking that myself.

Great minds think alike, I guess!

:toast:

[dkf]

2. They are trying to curb what every doctor recommends in treatments by taxing you.

Doesn't that make so much sense?

[flyarm]

12. another words..they are playing doctor with no medical training?

I don't want a pencil jockey in some office deciding what medical care my doctors deem nessesary, for my health care..so I have to be penalized because some pencil jockey wants to curb my doctor from being my doctor?????

I am beyond disgust..and any American that thinks this is "good " is fucking nuts!

[murphyj87]

54. Playing physician with no medical training..

is exactly what the insurance company bureaucrats who make your medical decisions, overruling physicians, have been doing for years and continue to do with this bill.

[chimpymustgo]

64. But they slept at a Ritz Carlton last night....

[murphyj87]

53. And medical insurance companies....

Ahave bee trying to curb what physicians recommends for profit and to ration your health care to increase their bottom line (now with the government's help).

[laughingliberal]

3. I guess it follows along with giving Wall Street firms billions of our tax dollars to correct a l

problem we did not create. Closer to the truth that many are going to admit.

America-welfare for the uber rich, personal responsibility for everyone else.

[frazzled]

4. They're not going to tax you

Which goes to show, I think, that you really don't get it.

If you're speaking of the excise tax, even then they're not going to tax you. The tax is on the insurer. Will they pass along the cost to you? Well, no: your employer, if she or he is not insane, is going to find a plan that doesn't exceed the very generous maximum. Which doesn't necessarily mean it will have significantly worse benefits. (Maybe you'll have to make a $20 copay for office visits instead of none--but that's a good thing. Not you, but maybe lots of your coworkers overuse doctors' visits, going for every hangnail, and thus raising the costs for the whole nation.) If your plan is high because your older, or a coal miner or fire fighter, that's covered, too. Your plan has to be way way higher for it to qualify for the tax. Again, it's not you who will pay the tax.

[Raven]

5. No, I think you really don't get it. Your post is so full of fudge that

I gained 10 pounds reading it.

[Frosty1]

7. Prove it

Do you have a link or anything?

[frazzled]

19. You want the facts? Try to read them

I'll extract only certain portions that relate to my original post, since I assume you don't open links:

The Excise Tax Provision, as the Finance Committee Modified It

Starting in 2013, the Finance Committee bill would impose a 40-percent excise tax on the portion of the value of health insurance coverage that exceeds $8,000 for single individuals and $21,000 for families.<1> In the 17 states with the nation’s highest health insurance premiums, the thresholds would be 20 percent, 10 percent, and 5 percent higher than these national thresholds for the first three years, respectively. The tax would be levied on a non-deductible basis on insurance companies or insurance administrators; it would apply to plans sold in the group insurance market and to self-insured plans but not to plans purchased in the individual market.
The Finance Committee significantly improved the original excise tax proposal during its consideration of the legislation. Its changes substantially reduced the number of plans and enrollees that the excise tax would affect.
Higher thresholds. Under the revised proposal, plans that cover retired people over the age of 55 and people in high-risk professions would have significantly higher thresholds. (High-risk professions include law enforcement, firefighting, rescue/ambulance squads, construction, mining, agriculture, forestry, and fishing.) For each person in one of these categories, the threshold would be increased by $1,850 — to $9,850 — for individual coverage, and by $5,000 — to $26,000 — for family coverage. The threshold for a plan would, in effect, be the average of the thresholds for each of its enrollees.
Increased inflation factor. Under the original proposal, the thresholds would have risen annually after 2013 with the rate of change in the consumer price index (CPI). Under the current proposal, the thresholds would rise with the CPI plus one percentage point. For example, if consumer prices rose 3 percent in a given year, the thresholds would rise by 4 percent. This change in indexing compounds over time and substantially reduces the number of taxpayers and health insurance plans affected by the excise tax in later years.

Most People and Plans Not Affected

The thresholds for the proposed excise tax are sufficiently high that most health insurance plans would not be affected.
In 2009, the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan is valued at $4,824 for a single individual and $13,375 for a family, far below the thresholds for the excise tax.<4>
The health insurance plan most commonly chosen by federal employees — including Members of Congress — costs $5,872 for individual coverage and $13,446 for a family.<5>
Under the Finance Committee’s plan, the threshold for taxation would be at least $21,000 for family coverage in 2013. A plan costing $21,000 in 2013 (the equivalent of about $17,550 in 2009) would be about a third more generous than the plan that most Members of Congress have. It also would be about a third more generous than the typical employer-sponsored health insurance plan.
The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that only 7.7 percent of tax filing units would be affected by the excise tax in 2013 and 17.6 percent by 2019. For those plans that would actually pay the excise tax, that tax would apply to only a portion of the plan’s value — the amount above the threshold.
Moreover, most of the affected plans and households would not actually pay the excise tax or higher premiums that reflected that tax. The JCT, as well as most economists and health analysts who have examined the proposal, concludes that health insurance plans and employers generally would respond by modifying their health plans to stay within the thresholds and avoid the excise tax; employers would convert the savings produced by modifying the health plans into higher wages or other compensation for employees. (Economic analysis finds that employees ultimately bear the employer share of health care premiums by receiving lower wages than they otherwise would. If an employer with a high-cost insurance plan scales back the plan to avoid the excise tax, the employer generally will move the savings to another form of employee compensation. If employers scaled back health plans to avoid the excise tax without passing the savings through in this manner, they would put themselves at a disadvantage with other employers in competing for workers.)

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2957

Next, read Paul Krugman's blog from today, in which he makes clear support for the excise tax (with slight modifications that we all agree with):

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/the-health-insurance-excise-tax/

Next, check out this chart of 2009 costs for Federal Employee's health insurance--the same insurance senators and congressfolk get. As far as I can see, the most expensive plan offered goes for $1293.76 a month (the SAMBA plan for "high family" coverage): that works out to $15,525 a year--far short of the $21,000 (or for older or high-risk employees, $26,000) a year this plan affects:

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/nonpostalffs2009.pdf

Lastly, just so you understand each of the plans better, here's a comparison of the House and Senate versions. We're probably going to end up with something closer to the Senate version ... but with important concessions to the House:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM136_100104_health_reform_conference.html

[doc03]

35. Translation: If you have a good health-care plan you

fought decades to get, the government thinks you get to much so they will do what the companies have failed to do even after 3 decades of strikes and lock-outs. Government by and for the insurance and health-care industry, the best government that can be bought.

[jbnow]

48. For the insurance company? How do you get that out of it?

How in the world do they benefit from a 40% excise tax on the premiums they collect above the trigger amount?
I understand they will pass it on to the degree they can (though if they jack up rates there are penalties to...like not being allowed on the exchange and missing out on all the new potential customers) but it's really a stretch to say it is "for" the insurance companies.

[doc03]

49. Isn't the government forcing several million more people to

buy their insurance, sounds like a pretty lucrative deal to me.

[FreakinDJ]

6. Which means HIGHER Co-pay with LESS Coverage

Change we can Beleive in alright

[MiniMe]

11. I disagree

I am on COBRA now and my health care premium for an individual would be 692.54/month without the subsidy, which is already over the 8,000/year mark. Do I have a good health care plan? I think so, but it is a PPO and I stay in network. It is what my small employer offered me. Since I am on COBRA any excise tax would be passed to me directly as part of the premium. I'm already unemployed, but I have to keep my insurance because I have a pre-existing condition.

[jbnow]

47. The excise tax would not be passed on to you. It is on the insurance

company. It has nothing to do with you.

If the insurance company raised premiums because of it then your premiums would go up. (and the insurance company would have to pay a 40% excise tax on the additional premium.)

But if your insurance is 8,600 let's say the insurance company would pay the tax on the $100 that is above the limit, not the whole 8,600

(Not supporting the idea of the tax, just explaining it)

[mdmc]

13. My employer has already stated that they don't think they can

continue to offer "affordable" health insurance.

They offer 4 different plans, none of which is generous, all are "jalopies" compared to a "cadillac" plan like our congresscritters have.

So if I still have a choice of plans, it will still cost me more to utilize medical treatment. I will have to pay higher co-pays and higher out of pocket expenses.

Why do you think that the cost won't trickle down to the patient? Why would an employer or an insurer eat the extra cost when their primary mission is one of profit?

[frazzled]

20. It won't affect your plan--don't know what you are talking about

If your plan doesn't cost your employer more than 21K a year for a family plan (8,500 for an individual), it won't be subject to this tax, so it won't mean bupkiss to you or your employer. It's not going to raise your premiums, or cut your benefits, or any of the other things you are talking about.

[mdmc]

27. How about we make a bet then

I will bet you that my medical treatment is cost more a year from now then it currently does.
You win if my medical treatment goes down in expense.
I "win" if my medical costs rise.

Right now I pay $20.oo to see my primary, $40.oo for a specialist, plus co-payments on medications.
I bet these co-pays will rise to $30.oo and $50.oo within the next 12 months.

We will play for a coke, or better yet, for a DU star. If you win I will buy a DU star for the DU'er of your choice. If I win you will buy a star for the DU'er of my choice.

We will bet on whether my co-pays/out of pocket expenses go up or down in the next 12 months. You in my friend?

ps- how do I find out how much my plan costs my employer?

[flyarm]

14. do i have fucking swamp land for you..real cheap too..with aligators included..

such a deal i know you will fall for it!!

what freaking planet are you from?????????

I know they say ..there is a fool born every minute..but you take the cake!!

Exactly..who..do you think you are kidding here??

Do you think all of us are inguts?????? And do not understand the concept at work here??????

wow..is all i can say..wow..I didn't know it could get this dumb around here.

[suffragette]

18. You're selling the moral-hazard myth.

Not going to buy it.

It was not true when it was being used as an argument for HSA's and is still untrue now.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829fa_fact?currentPage=all


What Nyman is saying is that when your insurance company requires that you make a twenty-dollar co-payment for a visit to the doctor, or when your plan includes an annual five-hundred-dollar or thousand-dollar deductible, it’s not simply an attempt to get you to pick up a larger share of your health costs. It is an attempt to make your use of the health-care system more efficient. Making you responsible for a share of the costs, the argument runs, will reduce moral hazard: you’ll no longer grab one of those free Pepsis when you aren’t really thirsty. That’s also why Nyman says that the notion of moral hazard is behind the “lack of enthusiasm” for expansion of health insurance. If you think of insurance as producing wasteful consumption of medical services, then the fact that there are forty-five million Americans without health insurance is no longer an immediate cause for alarm. After all, it’s not as if the uninsured never go to the doctor. They spend, on average, $934 a year on medical care. A moral-hazard theorist would say that they go to the doctor when they really have to. Those of us with private insurance, by contrast, consume $2,347 worth of health care a year. If a lot of that extra $1,413 is waste, then maybe the uninsured person is the truly efficient consumer of health care.

The moral-hazard argument makes sense, however, only if we consume health care in the same way that we consume other consumer goods, and to economists like Nyman this assumption is plainly absurd. We go to the doctor grudgingly, only because we’re sick. “Moral hazard is overblown,” the Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt says. “You always hear that the demand for health care is unlimited. This is just not true. People who are very well insured, who are very rich, do you see them check into the hospital because it’s free? Do people really like to go to the doctor? Do they check into the hospital instead of playing golf?”


For that matter, when you have to pay for your own health care, does your consumption really become more efficient? In the late nineteen-seventies, the RAND Corporation did an extensive study on the question, randomly assigning families to health plans with co-payment levels at zero per cent, twenty-five per cent, fifty per cent, or ninety-five per cent, up to six thousand dollars. As you might expect, the more that people were asked to chip in for their health care the less care they used. The problem was that they cut back equally on both frivolous care and useful care. Poor people in the high-deductible group with hypertension, for instance, didn’t do nearly as good a job of controlling their blood pressure as those in other groups, resulting in a ten-per-cent increase in the likelihood of death. As a recent Commonwealth Fund study concluded, cost sharing is “a blunt instrument.” Of course it is: how should the average consumer be expected to know beforehand what care is frivolous and what care is useful? I just went to the dermatologist to get moles checked for skin cancer. If I had had to pay a hundred per cent, or even fifty per cent, of the cost of the visit, I might not have gone. Would that have been a wise decision? I have no idea. But if one of those moles really is cancerous, that simple, inexpensive visit could save the health-care system tens of thousands of dollars (not to mention saving me a great deal of heartbreak). The focus on moral hazard suggests that the changes we make in our behavior when we have insurance are nearly always wasteful. Yet, when it comes to health care, many of the things we do only because we have insurance—like getting our moles checked, or getting our teeth cleaned regularly, or getting a mammogram or engaging in other routine preventive care—are anything but wasteful and inefficient. In fact, they are behaviors that could end up saving the health-care system a good deal of money.

edited since some of what I pasted didn't show up 1st time

[jtrockville]

22. Where will the government get the money to subsidize? Taxes!

If your income is so low you can't afford to comply with the mandate, you'll receive a subsidy. Where does the government get the money to provide the subsidy? Suggesting the government will take the money from insurers in order to buy insurance for the poor is pretzel logic.

[frazzled]

25. Your opinion versus that of all the top liberal health and labor economists

in the nation. Let's see, given that I'm fairly ignorant, I'm going to stake my bets on the labor and health economists on this one.

80% of the revenues expected to be generated from this excise tax won't come from the tax on the insurers themselves--it comes from the increased wages that will result from keeping the costs of policies down for employers. Now, you're gonna say that's not going to happen. I'll just repeat, every major liberal economist (including Paul Krugman today) says it will.

The rest is up to you.

[Nikki Stone1]

37. Increased wages are a hope; actually what will happen is that corporations

will take that money and run, not give it out as increased wages.

[jtrockville]

41. The excise tax doesn't explain where the subsidy will come from.

And I'm with "Nikki Stone1" on this one. While we can HOPE we'll see increased wages due to the excise tax, I wouldn't bet on it.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Nikki Stone1]

36. There WILL be extra taxes to cover the "subsidy"

And it will only get worse as time goes on and insurers demand more profits.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

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

[sabrina 1]

42. I think the OP gets it, I think we all get it.

(Maybe you'll have to make a $20 copay for office visits instead of none--but that's a good thing. Not you, but maybe lots of your coworkers overuse doctors' visits, going for every hangnail, and thus raising the costs for the whole nation.)

Is this snark and you just forgot the snark tag? If it isn't, do you realize that with this argument you turned Sarah Palin's 'death panels' lie into a fact?

Can you explain where the government gets the right to tell you what kind of insurance policy you have a right to buy? Since when does the government know what kind of treatment you need or don't need, especially since YOU'RE paying for it? And when in the history of this country has the government forced people to buy a product from a private business under penalty of law, with the IRS as a collection agency for that business, AND then go on to tell those who can afford better coverage that they will be punished by having their premiums taxed for doing so?

Do you care more about how your party looks than the rights of Americans citizens? And what product will they regulate next?

I know this, if I were a big corporation that sells, let's say, automobiles, I'd be looking to see who I could buy in congress to get MY product included in this kind of legislation. It looks like part of the population of this country can be sold anything, if the right party is selling it.

How does this sound, coming from a Republican majority? 'Something has to be done to lower the rising cost of Automobile Ins. This legislation will do that by forcing those who up to now, were not doing their part, to buy a new car every three years. Driving old, unsafe vehicles has been the cause of the rise in Insurance Costs. Also it will save lives. Anyone who refuses to buy a new car every three years, will be fined and the fines will be collected by the IRS. There will be subsidies to help those who fall below the poverty line to help them comply with this law'. On the other end of the scale, people who buy expensive insurance policies, will have part of those high insurance policies taxed as a means of discouraging the owners from getting every, littl windshield crack fixed'.

Depending on which party tries it, after watching this debacle, I know for a fact that party loyalists would defend such a bill.

[Edweird]

44. Hm.

http://www.youtube.com/user/davidsirota#p/u/0/MRNx-F8vRmM

[Mojorabbit]

57. I am betting that a majority of people

do not overuse their medical insurance. By this logic those that are getting good preventative medicine would be overusing the system and I don't see that happening either.

[grytpype]

60. This is too complicated for most people.

HCR is an area where I rely on experts I trust, like Paul Krugman and the Dem Senators who have been working on these issues for years and decades.

There are too many marginal people on this board who are ready to scream and cry treason over things they frankly do not understand.

[Birthmark]

8. Why are they taxing *you*?

Well, that's easy! You have no lobbyists. Me, either. :(

[David Zephyr]

9. Americans over 50, but too young for Medicare (65) will be hit hard by this "reform"

Our fellow citizens who are in that danger zone where employers are looking to replace them with younger workers, who have the highest health-care premiums because age discrimination by insurance corporations, will now have to pay "taxes" on their healthcare plans because they touch on the $8K taxable threshold championed by President Obama.

The reason so many in this age group are already paying over $700 per month in premiums is NOT because they have fancy health-care plans, but because of their age. And to add insult to injury, this very wicked tax is called a "tax on Cadillac healthcare plans".

And the fact that Democrats dangled expanding Medicare down to this vulnerable age group who are always the first targeted for job layoffs, the fury is building.

And those who are in this age trap, who lose their jobs and try to pull the 18 month COBRA trick to carry them closer to the harbor of 65 when they can collect Medicare will also see those COBRA payments taxed because they will exceed $8K per year and thereby these unemployed workers will be taxed on their "Cadillac" COBRA payments.

And union workers, who have given back benefits, given back pay increases just to maintain their healthcare benefits will also be paying taxes now.

Raven, I can't answer your question as to what planet these people think they are living on, but it's apparently one where they don't have to look working class people in the face very often.

[laughingliberal]

16. Yep. Already hard to find employment if you lose your job over 50

After this passes, impossible.

[David Zephyr]

24. You make a point I hadn't considered.

It will only make finding work even harder for this age group.

And from a Democratic President and Democratic Senate.

[laughingliberal]

30. Whole bunches of us out of work these days and many companies go after our age group 1st

for some reasons you mentioned-salaries are higher due to more experience, cost of insuring us is higher.

Let us consider another reason knocking people between 50 and 64 out of the job market is a plus. Years of stealing our SS taxes for the general fund has left the fund depleted at a time when they are facing millions of people retiring over the next years as they reach 65 and those IOU's are coming due. They don't want to pay it back to the fund. SS benefits are weighted heavily towards the last years you work. If you are thrown into unemployment at 55 or so and can not find another job, your benefit will be seriously reduced by the time you are able to draw it. Is everything, at some level, connected? Absolutely!

[Horse with no Name]

69. Interesting concept.

I would bet you are VERY close to the truth.

[Horse with no Name]

68. Democratic in Name Only

I can count the REAL Democrats in Washington on one hand--and not one of them actually lives in the White House.

[frazzled]

34. You'd be right, if the bill didn't already provide for older workers

as well as for workers in high-risk positions. The excise tax wouldn't kick in for older workers until a much higher threshold is met:

Under the revised proposal, plans that cover retired people over the age of 55 and people in high-risk professions would have significantly higher thresholds. (High-risk professions include law enforcement, firefighting, rescue/ambulance squads, construction, mining, agriculture, forestry, and fishing.) For each person in one of these categories, the threshold would be increased by $1,850 — to $9,850 — for individual coverage, and by $5,000 — to $26,000 — for family coverage. The threshold for a plan would, in effect, be the average of the thresholds for each of its enrollees.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2957


I can't count how many people in this thread have told me to "stop lying." I'd be tempted to say the same to you, except it is not only rude, it is probably wrong: you weren't lying, you just didn't know that the bill has compensated for this question of age already--so that disincentive to retain older workers is not really an issue.

[David Zephyr]

39. I am right. Your cited provision is for "retired people over 55". I'd said "older workers"

Big difference, huh?

[Little Star]

43. Some have theirs so the rest can eat cake!

[jbnow]

50. Why are you sating they'd be taxed? The tax is not on the person

paying the premiums, it is on the insurance company. It has nothing to do with the person unless the insurance company raises everyone's premiums.

And the managers amendment already put an age exception in there along with an exception for high risk jobs. (Because companies premiums with an older average age of employees would be costlier. Average age. Prices don't vary in group insurance between individuals)

I think the tax is a dumb idea...

I do think older Americans will end up getting Medicare buy in. Not in this bill because it wouldn't pass but later it will get added through reconciliation. That will be easy to get through unlike the entire current bill because it is directly budget related.
That's because even though community rating for age will be limited 2 or 3 to 1 that will still be quite expensive for the older adult buying their own.
Since many will be getting subsidies for everything in excess of the percentage they are required to pay that will be costly for tax payers.
Also having older adults in the larger pool will raise premiums on everyone. (Right now in individual plans they charge at least 10 times more for older adults, not 2 or 3.) So getting them into medicare and thus lowering premiums on the rest will mean lower subsidies on younger people too.
Reconciliation is specifically for budget issues, reconciling the budget. This will do a lot for the budget. I'm sure they'll do this as things start unfolding.
Further those just above the subsidy level won't be able to afford them. They won't be penalized since if they can't find a policy on exchange less than 8% of their income they are released from the mandate. But they will be frigging uninsured! Older adults who are likeliest to need insurance will be left without.

So older people will be screwed by the plan itself (though not as screwed as they are now buying individual plans), just not by the part you refer to.

[AuntPatsy]

10. Perhaps you should find a way to get the answer to your question....if you feel it is important

enough perhaps you will find a way to get whomever would know the answer to ensure you and others are no longer kept in the dark like so many of us...

Do you have an idea on how to get the fact based answer or are you comfortable simply asking a rhetorical question without really expecting an informative answer?

[mdmc]

15. I think the OP know the answer

Raven will be taxed because she has no lobbyist or voice in DC.
I think she knows that.
I think she does not like that.
I don't think there is any recourse for her.

I have asked my congressperson a very simple question - I cannot afford medical treatment although I am currently fully insured. How much more will my treatment cost after this bill is passed?

We are not sure how much more medical treatment will cost me after the bill is passed. It will depend on how the insurance companies behave. If they act like corporations, I will pay more. If they act in the best interest of my health, I will pay less.

[laughingliberal]

17. And let's all put on our thinking caps and try to figure out how the insurance companies will behave

Because they do have lobbyists and a voice in DC. Apparently the loudest voice in DC. I'm not sure there was a way to make health care reform any more odious than what they have done.

[jtrockville]

23. Insurance companies will do the right thing. They always do.

They'll do the right thing for their executives of course. They'll take as much money in premiums as they can, and provide as little care as possible in return. And the MLR will become the biggest loophole we've ever seen.

[tridim]

61. And for the first time in history they have a REASON to do the right thing

That's the whole point of the bill.

[mdmc]

28. I think that they have a legal responsibility to earn profits

and no real responsibility to look out for the best interest of my health. I know how they will behave - they will behave just like they always have..

[Raven]

62. Maybe we need an icon for "rhetorical question." Of course mine

was a rhetorical question...I know the answer. I am going to be penalized via a tax or lousy benefits for decades of insurance company greed and the inability of government to stop it. As with the bank/Wall Street bailouts, I lost a bundle of my retirement savings thanks to that I then my tax money is used to bail these greedy bastards out. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Kansas Wyatt]

21. They are basically making sure everyone pays the Insurance Industry...

For a Single Payer Health Care Reform Plan, but they are keeping the same Insurance Industry health care system in place.

Think about how many are paying their so-called 'Cadillac' rates now and how many more will be paying that by the time their alleged HCR goes into effect. It was a bait and switch gimmick all along to FORCE everyone to buy insurance from the Insurance Industry, and those who have insurance now will be paying for those who don't have it now.

That is the bottom line to this HCR/DLC SHIT Bill.

[yodoobo]

29. They are not. They will tax the corporations.

[pnwmom]

31. Raven, what do you think happens with Medicare? Everyone is taxed

to help pay for a flawed system.

We're going to have to continually work to fix flaws after the bill is passed. But at least children and younger people -- in addition to the elderly -- will have access to health care, no matter what their preexisting conditions.

[TransitJohn]

32. They won't have any more access to health care than they do now.

They'll have access to for-profit health insurance. Health insurance does not equal health care.

[pnwmom]

33. There are a number of non-profit health insurers, including most Blue Cross

Blue Shield providers.

Of course they will have more access. Without insurance, many doctors and hospitals won't even take patients. And they'll have access just as Medicare patients do now.

[truedelphi]

46. Is this the same benevolent Blue Cross Blue Shield that has jacked their rates

Sky high over the last four years, and who have cherry picked their patients for the last thirty some years?

I am sure that they have devoted a great many resources (i.e.) lobbyists to help them craft this clever bill. And so, do not be surprised now that they cannot cherry pick to find that they are somewhat dumbing down their services.

Oh they will still offer treatments, but they won't be appropriate. And don't be surprised to find that they stall people on treatments, as nothing in the bill says that we the consuemrs/payers have any way to actually receive grade A service from the Big Medical Interests!

[pnwmom]

52. Right now only seniors have access to insurance now matter what the state

of their health. I think it is time for their children and grandchildren to have insurance, too, no matter what preexisting conditions they have.


No, the system will be flawed, but that's life. Whatever the House and Senate comes up with now will be the best we can do -- right now. But there is nothing to stop them from amending the bill, over time, to improve it.

[truedelphi]

70. Do you really really think that after the Big Insurers are handed

Even more money for even more lobbyists, that they will be amenable to having their lobbyists back off?

Naw, they will have more lobbyists than ever.

It was so disenheartening to watch Bill Moyers on Friday night.

His two guests explained that whenever the junior memebrs of Congress feel the need to fill up their campaign coffers, they put out the word that there will be hearings on reforming some matter or other.

If a junior member of Congress wants some quick cash from the financial sector then they put out there that there will be financial reforms happening. Or if they want it from Big Insurers, than they put out there that there will regulations on Insurers.

It is all a dog and pony show. I used to think our system was about us, but the veil has been lifted from my eyes.

[johnaries]

38. They're not. Try reading the bill instead of buying into hysteria. nt

[truedelphi]

45. Settle down. The good folks over at "Big Pharma Controls All"

Have a potion that will help you with all of this.

For instance, if you're trying to make sense of this, your Sense-o-nometer probably first went Whack-o-mole when the candidate for his party's nomination, one Senator Barack Obama said the following, "Although Single Payer Universal Health Care would be the most logical solution for our health care reform efforts IF WE WERE STARTING from scratch, since we already have a system in place, then we have to create a most uniquely American alternative."

That made no sense either. But ever since I have been on a steady combination of Xanax, Abilify, Zoloft, and vicodeine (heavy on the vicodeine) I have felt no pain or problem in accepting that my Democratic leaders know what is right for us!!

I am sure once you find the right doctor, you will be able to join me in my bliss!

And count your blessings. You would never get that many drugs prescribed for you at any one time, unless you were paying in enough to be taxed for your insurance policy!

[1]

51. that's pretty much all governments got. taxes. it doesn't matter who created the problem...

if all you got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail...

[BzaDem]

55. Wow. Are you serious?

Taxes in other countries (even for middle and lower income groups) are MUCH higher than they are in our country to pay for single payer. You are now complaining about taxes paying for social programs? I mean, teabaggers complain about taxes, Republicans complain about taxes, but I wasn't aware that it was a Democratic position to complain that "the big gubmit is taxing me to help people who are uninsured."

[shawcomm]

58. That's well and good, but

we won't be paying for single payer. We'll just be paying more to government and insurance companies for less health care. I don't mind taxes, but they need to be spent wisely. Throwing them to insurance companies is not my idea of wise spending.

If this were real single payer, or full blown government health care like the VA, then I wouldn't have any problems with getting my taxes raised, and I'm definitely in the group that isn't supposed to see any more taxes. Congress really fucked this all up.

[Skittles]

56. it's called sucking corporate ass

[TheKentuckian]

59. They aren't going to tax you. They're just going to screw you out of benefits

and introduce you to advanced cost sharing. Now, you'll probably being paying a lot more for any care but now you'll be a smarter medical consumer. Oh, you didn't go to med school and just want to get well? mmmhmmm....hmm

Well, keep in mind that any sacrifice you make will ensure the coninued success of private insurers and the employer based system.

Keep in mind that we can't have reforms that interfer with profits, take a chip out of the stack of employers, actually regulate the system, or that might subtract one single bauble from the wealthy folk's dragon like hordes and we had to have some kind of cost containment so hair cuts for working and middle class folks, junk coverage for the poor, and house #11 for the top 1%.

[winyanstaz]

63. Kill the bill!

[Johnny ramone]

65. Yup.

[cyclezealot]

66. Not my ideal plan.. But,

we should look into the specifics of the bill.. The tax will be imposed on health care premiums so high , middle class workers will not be affected.. Seems the premiums to be taxed were well over 3000 dollars a month.. Those plans are so deluxe, no working person need worry.. In fact, unless the reform has changed, those plans are so deluxe, taxing a percentage of them is only fair..

[laughingliberal]

67. The rate for individual plans that will be taxed is $8500 per year

hardly $3000 per month. In fact the rate at which family plans will be taxed is $23,00 per year. It is not at all unusual for the premium for someone over 50 to be $8500 per year (that's $708 per month) and the plans are not 'deluxe' at all. I don't know if you are misinformed or deliberately trying to mislead people but your facts are in error.

edited for grammar

[ibegurpard]

72. I would be totally fine with my tax dollars paying for healthcare

but not paying insurance companies.