Posted on 05/16/2009 2:33:44 PM PDT by Starman417
In a world filled with media seemingly unable to multitask, the nation's consumption is steadily subsisting on a diet of Pelosi. Unfortunately, there are some far more viable events going on that are having a hard time breaking the surface. So here... a round up of three alternative issues.
NYT's Robert Pear is reporting on the detailed approach both House and Senate are taking for Obama's "reform". And for the ingenues who believe that Obama and his minions are not out for universal health care, they should stop listening to the honey-tongued "just words" and start getting a grip on reality by reading.
The Senate version is mandating everyone carry health care as of 2013... exempting only illegal immigrants and those opposed for religious reasons. Odd concept since in some parts of the country, it is the illegal immigrant population driving up the costs.
All employers will be mandated to provide insurance to their workers, or face a "special tax". Additionally, the government will be mandating the four levels of coverage provided by that employer... from lowest to highest. And no annual or lifetime limitations allowed either.
Not only will the government regulate the marketing of commercial insurance premiums to families and employers, they will also regulate premium prices, allowing workers to drop out and seek a better deal.... no doubt that offered by the federal government plan.
Not enough? They plan to dictate sales commissions as well.
Under the Senate proposals, the government would regulate not only insurance products, but also the marketing of insurance and sales commissions paid to insurance agents and brokers.
Under these auspices, the private insurer - who requires a profit to stay in business - cannot compete with the government who just sucks more out of the taxpayer as their costs increase. With government mandates controlling everything from premium price for coverage to marketing, their demise is imminent. Indeed, it is being orchestrated.
One of the most notable features of the Senate proposals is that workers could drop out of an employer’s group health plan and buy private insurance on their own, outside the workplace. The employer’s normal contribution for a worker would be paid to the insurance exchange.Democrats said that people dropping out of employer plans would, in many cases, be eligible for tax credits to defray their premiums.
Employers worry that this feature would destabilize the health plans they provide to employees.
“If people can opt out of employer-sponsored insurance and get a tax credit, that will lead to a death spiral for employer-sponsored plans,” said James P. Gelfand, senior manager of health policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce.
“People who are sick will stay in employer plans, and many young, healthy people will opt out,” Mr. Gelfand said.
The House version accomplishes something similiar, using a government "health insurance exchange" that mandates participation by all private insurers. The government would also label all insurers with "quality ratings".... a Good "House"keeping Seal of Approval, so to speak.
Consumers could sign up for insurance at hospitals, schools, Social Security offices and state departments of motor vehicles.
~~~Under the Democratic proposals, the government would offer tax credits to help people buy insurance. The credit would be available to people with incomes up to four times the poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four).
The government would also provide tax credits to help small businesses buy insurance for employees. The credit would be available to businesses with up to 25 employees, and businesses with the lowest-wage workers would get more aid.
And how do they propose enforcing their mandates?
Taxpayers would have to report their health insurance coverage on their federal income tax returns. Under the main Senate proposal, the penalty for not being insured would be an excise tax, which could be as high as 75 percent of the premium for the lowest-cost health plan available in the area where a person lives.Under the proposal, all employers with more than $500,000 in total payroll would have to offer insurance to full-time workers or “pay an assessment,” in the form of a new excise tax.
An employer offering insurance would have to pay at least 50 percent of the premium. An employer not offering insurance would have to pay the excise tax, which would increase with a company’s payroll, so the largest employers might pay $500 per employee per month.
WaPo's Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown - a couple of legal eagles specializing in media and 1st Amendment issues - have come up with some legislative suggestions to aid the struggling media. Most of it entails kneecapping their Internet competition.
They start out by applauding the proposed media bailout I posted on late March. Then the piling on begins.
Since their suggestions are not already law, I guess I'll escape their legal wrath when I just let you read their advice.. direct from the horses mouth below.
(Excerpt) Read more at Flopping Aces ...
This missive applies to just about everything that comes out of Washington.
Unfortunately, the majority of idiots out there will fight before being weeened from the former and are incapable or too lazy to do the latter.
Great. “RomneyCare” goes national.
Thanks....pinging others.
The election in 2012 had best be a watershed moment for this nation. These a-holes who wish to subvert, convert and crush our current free market systems must be tossed out on their arses.
Notice how the Senate version is mandating everyone carry health care coverage by 2013? Why 2013? I'll tell you why. Because if 0bama is not re-elected, 2013 is too late for the next administration anyone to change it if it is signed in to law. We are under attack people. Mobilize and make sure that 0bama is NOT re-elected. We must take steps to rectify the biggest mistake this country has ever made. And the US of A has pulled some real boners in the past. But I still love her.
AP’s Chief Executive Is About To Be Taken To School ( Google vs the Associated Press )
What the heck? What does the "STATE department of motor vehicles" have to do with health insurance? Do they have a clue how long the lines are currently at these places? Are they complete idiots?
“Are they complete idiots?”
Do you really have to ask?
One of the best websites I’ve seen in a long time. Thanks
The main problems I see right now with health care costs are:
(1) that people without insurance are tremendously overcharged by providers;
(2) and people without group insurance cannot afford
individual insurance premiums.
One simple answer for problem #1 is to make it a criminal fraud for any health provider to bill anyone for more than 25% more than the lowest price they contract to accept from an insurance company. Believe it or not, this simple measure would lower some medical bills by as much as 90%. My son recently went to the emergency room after a fairly minor accident. The hospital’s bill was ~$6800, which our group health insurance reduced to a a contract price of ~$500. Why shouldn’t everone else get billed for something close to that bottom line price?
The only answer I can think of for problem #2 is to require every adult to purchase medical insurance coverage, and to forbid insurance companies from considering prexisting conditions in pricing policies. That way we would all be one large group, and would all get group rates. Is that socialism? I suppose it is, but the alternative is sick people without insurance and either without medical care or cared for by the government, after medical bills have drained their assets and made them destitute.
Our current system is OK for the rich, and the poor ( Medicaid), but for the middle class it is a constant threat to make them destitute if they lose their insurance and get sick. We do need some improvement, and it is very unfortunate that Obama and the Commiecrats will get to write the bill.
Does anyone have some better ideas?
One thing that would be a great step forward would be publicly listing prices. If people could shop around prices would come down. I pay 20 percent of my health costs so I’d like to shop around for a better deal but no one will tell me what anything costs.
I agree with you about prices.
Daughter had a gall bladder out without insurance and was charged the premium.
I get about half of every bill cut off due to medicare then my medigap picks up the rest. An 8000 bill for chemo is cut to 4000 automatically. Doc bills of 180 a visit are cut to 100.
But without insurance, I would be charged top dollar. I know groups negotiate but seems to me the individual person without insurance shouldn’t be hit like that.
bttt
My two:
Cap & trade (has the potential to hurt much worse than health care and nobama and Waxman wanna get ‘er done by Memorial Day)
health care
Pelosi is on parade and diverting our attention while nobama and his thugs do all the dirty deeds behind our back.
nobama is a VERY dangerous person. He needs to be watched very carefully 24/7.
Because if 0bama is not re-elected, 2013 is too late for the next administration anyone to change it if it is signed in to law. We are under attack people.
########
Forgive my ignorance here, but I thought a previous admin’s law could be revoked, or have amendments made to it by a new admin?
The reason I ask this, and again forgive my ignorance, but hasn’t Zero revoked/overturned some of Bush’s bills? I don’t know how this works from 1 admin to the other, but for some reason I thought it could be done.
So illegals don't have to pay the tax, but legal immigrants do????? Who wrote this idiocy?
Both of you have hit key points regarding the opacity of the markets in health care and health care insurance. The lack of an efficient market in these areas is one of the biggest reasons health care is so expensive. Lack of market transparency makes it very difficult for price signals to cause efficiency improvements.
Much of this has come about because of gov’t intervention in the market, as only businesses can tax-deduct health insurance premiums due to gov’t edict. People are clamoring for a better answer, and the socialists in power are going to create a system with even more gov’t intervention to really, once and for all, totally screw things up.
Unless I’m mistaken...which has been known to happen...a bill, once signed into law, can be changed after a long political process. It cannot be revoked unless proven to be unlawful or unconstitutional by another long process in the courts. We wouldn’t be toast but we’d be in for a long rough ride if such laws, as 0bama’s administration wants, are passed and signed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.