Login  
 
 
Go Back   Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Non Harry Potter Archives

Health Care Politics



 
 
Thread Tools
  #741  
Old September 10th, 2009, 1:04 pm
USNAGator91's Avatar
USNAGator91  Male.gif USNAGator91 is offline
The Godfather
 
Joined: 4621 days
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Age: 50
Posts: 1,127
Re: Health Care Politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by canismajoris View Post
Well good, then you should support the President, because he doesn't want the government to take over the health care choices of everyone. Nobody really does. So when you're suggesting this is the logical result of the president's and a Democratic Congress's plan, I hope you're willing to admit that it's just partisan rhetoric.
Your right, the president's speech was nothing more than partisan rhetoric, full of half truths and out right falsehoods. All he did was prop up HR3200 which was the source of angst in August. He made no move to clarify issues. The sum total of his speech was to bash opponents and tell them he's coming after them.

Nice.

The AP, hardly the bastion of conservative thought, went into great detail on how misleading the President was. He didn't move the ball, he just staked his ground with no compromise.

Fine, Mr. President. Then pass the bill. You don't need nor do you have my support in this. I HOPE YOU FAIL. (I guess that makes me unAmerican.)

The AP's take on the President's speech.


__________________

Thanks to cybobbie for the awesome sig pic!
Thanks to the best fanclub in the world!

My Fanfics:
A History of Magic: Part II - Beyond the Epilogue
Teddy Lupin and the Legacy of the Marauders ; A History of Magic: The Harry Potter Era (on hiatus); You Are Cordially Invited... (First Attempt)
Sponsored Links
  #742  
Old September 10th, 2009, 2:01 pm
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Custodian of Hades Vault
 
Joined: 4815 days
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,653
Re: Health Care Politics

Quote:
I HOPE YOU FAIL. (I guess that makes me unAmerican.)
Why? Because you don't think the plan will work, or because even if the plan works you think it's still wrong?

And, here's a link to the AP Fact check. I think the accounting "sleight of hand" that Obama is using with the circular logic about why he doesn't need to account for some of the money (because his 10 year budget already accounted for it) is perhaps the one thing that is of real note in there. Joe Wilson's claim that Obama is a liar about covering illegal immigrants was debunked by pretty much everyone (he picked the wrong spot, if he yelled it out on the preventative care line, then he'd be right, though I do quibble, as I noted before, with the methodology used there). Of the seven items the AP listed in their fact check, it's running about 50/50; hardly a condemnation of the speech and quite in line with the recent standard from US presidents.

Politifact is up to five items ranked; and factcheck is still working on their article (ie, they don't have one up yet but their own history suggests they'll have a long essay up later today).


__________________
RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.

Last edited by Chris; September 10th, 2009 at 2:11 pm.
  #743  
Old September 10th, 2009, 2:47 pm
OldLupin's Avatar
OldLupin  Male.gif OldLupin is offline
Forum Elephant
 
Joined: 5477 days
Location: Absurdistan
Age: 48
Posts: 2,412
Re: Health Care Politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by canismajoris View Post
Well good, then you should support the President, because he doesn't want the government to take over the health care choices of everyone. Nobody really does. So when you're suggesting this is the logical result of the president's and a Democratic Congress's plan, I hope you're willing to admit that it's just partisan rhetoric.
Is that how you heard it? So if there is a "government option" why would most people continue to keep their health insurance? Even in the language of the speech, if I changed jobs, why, and more importantly, how, would I be able to justify in my limited budget a move from the "government option" back to private insurance when I have to effectively pay for both? Of course he didn't directly say the government was taking over healthcare, he minimized the government action and maximized private insurance while in effect forwarding a plan that would effectively eliminate private insurance over time.

There is the posibility of a choice, just like with education, or military/VA or medicare, but the choice is unrealistic in nature. If the options are pay for government care and in addition buy private care or use the government care you are already paying for, what choice is really available for the vast majority of people? That isn't rhetoric, it is reasonable cause and effect. What in anything said prohibits that exact outcome and what in history or human nature would stop that chain reaction?


__________________


Vote your own issues. Nah, just vote the way I tell you to.
  #744  
Old September 10th, 2009, 2:49 pm
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Custodian of Hades Vault
 
Joined: 4815 days
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,653
Re: Health Care Politics

I thought he was offering tax credits and automatic medicaid enrollment, along with a hardship waiver provision, in order to help people afford it.


__________________
RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.
  #745  
Old September 10th, 2009, 3:05 pm
OldLupin's Avatar
OldLupin  Male.gif OldLupin is offline
Forum Elephant
 
Joined: 5477 days
Location: Absurdistan
Age: 48
Posts: 2,412
Re: Health Care Politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
I thought he was offering tax credits and automatic medicaid enrollment, along with a hardship waiver provision, in order to help people afford it.
He is, yet is that in any way likely to keep the costs lower to the individual than the combined costs of both public and private? As having some form of insurance will be mandatory and lack of private insurance will mean mandatory enrollment in a federal program of one sort or the other, how can paying for both be realistic? I, not unlike most people, would all but have to stop paying for private insurance and opt for the federal program just because of cost. Not to mention, I would head-hunt an all pay employment because partially paid benifits wouldn't mean very much to me any more.

I don't see myself as unusual in this regard, which would put the onus on employers to drop expensive benifits plans, pay into the fund and up the income of desirable employees. While that sounds like a good deal up front, it ends up being a net loss once taxation is implimented to cover the staggering costs that will follow and in higher pay brackets, there is higher percentage of tax. Good way to increase revenue, except that as it is a net loss with inflation, we actually have less purchasing and product demand, which drops the economy in total.

Again, what stops that chain reaction in realistic terms? I didn't hear the restriction of the government option that made its use in this way prohibitive, nor did I hear anything to make me believe that mass enrollment in such an option wouldn't be imminent if provided.


__________________


Vote your own issues. Nah, just vote the way I tell you to.
  #746  
Old September 10th, 2009, 3:19 pm
USNAGator91's Avatar
USNAGator91  Male.gif USNAGator91 is offline
The Godfather
 
Joined: 4621 days
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Age: 50
Posts: 1,127
Re: Health Care Politics

Some other things puzzled me about the President's speech:

Quote:
Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics.
Quote:
Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result.
Got that? If you oppose any tenet in HR3200 (I'm assuming that his "plan" since he didn't reference any other), then you are using scare tactics, but "MORE WILL DIE AS A RESULT" reflects a sense of urgency.

Quote:
This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right.
Hang on a second. What about all those people that are going to die??? The President can't have it both ways.

Quote:
I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers.
Probably a nit pick, but really, since when are profits part of "overhead"? Oh, we're talking about a President who has NEVER been in the private sector, never had to be answerable to investors and actually PARTICIPATED in a corporation, so I'll forgive his apparent ignorance.

Quote:
The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud...Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.
Got that? There's "hundreds of billions" in waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. Quick question, Mr. President, if you've identified "hundreds of billions" in waste and fraud, um, why not just eliminate it now? Why not have the administration actually enforce the law instead of waiting the four years?

Last one, but okay, follow me on this.

On August 10th in a town hall in New Hampshire, the President said this:

Quote:
"I don't have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don't have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage."
Last night he said:

Quote:
We are the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy nation - that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.
Apparently "doing nothing" eliminated 16 million uninsured from their problems in one month. At this rate, why not just "do nothing" for two more months and everyone will be insured???

Of course that's absurd, but if we don't know the extent of the problem, how can we fix it?

One more note: 14,000 lose their coverage a day, right? We wait 4 years for the President's plan, and voila, you have another 15 million uninsured. Hmmmm.


__________________

Thanks to cybobbie for the awesome sig pic!
Thanks to the best fanclub in the world!

My Fanfics:
A History of Magic: Part II - Beyond the Epilogue
Teddy Lupin and the Legacy of the Marauders ; A History of Magic: The Harry Potter Era (on hiatus); You Are Cordially Invited... (First Attempt)
  #747  
Old September 10th, 2009, 3:19 pm
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Custodian of Hades Vault
 
Joined: 4815 days
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,653
Re: Health Care Politics

I thought HR 3400 had similar provisions, except for where they set the cutoffs for medicaid and tax credits, but that HR 3400 didn't account for what happens if someone over the medicaid enrollment cutoff tries to buy private insurance with the tax credit but cannot. The Obama / Baucus plan appears to address this loophole by setting up insurance exchanges and by keeping open the idea of a public option - a safeguard that, unless I'm mistaken, the republican plan lacks.

I take it your "double paying" complaint is the subsidizing of others' insurance through taxes along with however you buy your own insurance. I don't understand, however, how that'd be different if we take HR 3400 - you'd still be subsidizing others' through taxes. And both plans leave open the option to buy private insurance - the Republican plan through existing marketplaces and the Baucus / Obama plan through a new marketplace designed to overcome some of the shortcomings of the existing marketplaces. Thus, unless you oppose both plans, I don't see how the alternative is actually different (leaving open the possibility that your income range is in the range where the Republican plan gives a tax credit and the Democratic plan does not, if such a range exists).

ETA to gator: Good explanation of the new figure, from the article I linked previously (which I think you were referring to earlier, but I can't be sure, but it is the AP's factcheck):

Quote:
OBAMA: "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."
THE FACTS: Obama time and again has referred to the number of uninsured as 46 million, a figure based on year-old Census data. The new number is based on an analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which concluded that about two-thirds of Americans without insurance are poor or near poor. "These individuals are less likely to be offered employer-sponsored coverage or to be able to afford to purchase their own coverage," the report said. By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health insurance.


__________________
RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.

Last edited by Chris; September 10th, 2009 at 3:22 pm.
  #748  
Old September 10th, 2009, 3:44 pm
monster_mom's Avatar
monster_mom  Female.gif monster_mom is offline
Curse Breaker
 
Joined: 4961 days
Location: Elmo's World
Age: 51
Posts: 7,344
Re: Health Care Politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
For the life of me I can't find a cost estimate for HR 3400, but one link I did find mentioned that part of the "cost offset" is an (Incidentally, everything I found is blogs)
I haven't been able to find anything on the CBO cost estimate for HR 3400. From what I understand for calling Congressman Pince's office, the only way the bill will be costed by the CBO is if the Speaker approves it and she has not.

Like you I found the same supposition about cost offsets and the 1% non defense cut in spending. But I couldn't find any sources to back that up, just links to commentary from other bloggers.

In the federal government spending is assumed to increase each year at the rate of inflation, if for no other reason than federal employees get an automatic Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) each year equal to the rate of inflation (military pay, BTW, is excluded from this automatic increase). So if the inflation rate is 3% then the budget for every federal agency, organization, or department will increase by 3%.

If we assume that the chatter from non-sourced blogs is correct, and HR 3400 could be paid for with a 1% non-defense cut in spending, then that would mean that the increase in each federal budget, except defense, would be the rate of inflation less 1%. So if inflation was 2%, then each budget would increase by 1%. If the rate of inflation was .5%, then each budget would decrease by .5%.

Either way, with the deficit as large as it is and China starting to balk at buying more of our debt, we're going to have to cut spending.

EDIT*****

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chirs
I thought HR 3400 had similar provisions, except for where they set the cutoffs for medicaid and tax credits, but that HR 3400 didn't account for what happens if someone over the medicaid enrollment cutoff tries to buy private insurance with the tax credit but cannot. The Obama / Baucus plan appears to address this loophole by setting up insurance exchanges and by keeping open the idea of a public option - a safeguard that, unless I'm mistaken, the republican plan lacks.
See - this is what happens when I gossip with a neighbor halfway through a post!

HR 3400 calls for the creation of state run high risk pools for people whose premiums provided through an employer, membership organization, or association sponsored plan exceed 1.5 times the national average. Most high risk people can not obtain coverage because their existing medical conditions result in premiums that are so high they can not afford them. This provision provides access to affordable coverage for them and their families through the state run high risk pools because the only standard necessary to qualify for inclusion into the pool is premiums that exceed 1.5 times the national average.


__________________
We don't belong to the government, the government belongs to us - - Mitt Romney


Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years? - - Paul Ryan

Last edited by monster_mom; September 10th, 2009 at 3:52 pm.
  #749  
Old September 10th, 2009, 4:05 pm
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Custodian of Hades Vault
 
Joined: 4815 days
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,653
Re: Health Care Politics

Thanks for the latter clarification Mom. Personally, I'd have no issue with either a federal-run or state-run system of pools. I'd like to have a federal option which has to accept people (exception: those convicted of medicare / medicaid / etc fraud can be left out, for all I care) whom all other plans fail to accept. The federal-run might have a better economy of scale for negotiating with companies, etc, but the state-run may have a better idea of the conditions in a given state. Perhaps a hybrid where the states (either by region or as a whole) negotiate the contracts but the plans are run state-by-state could be put in place. Combine that with the ability to buy a LA plan in TX, for example, and I'm fine with it. My biggest problem with HR 3400 is the system of funding, since I can assure you that directly or indirectly I would be hurt by that, since it could have a catastrophic unintended effect on NIH funding, which me and most other graduate students in science in the United States are highly dependent on.

To expand on my parenthetical statement above...I think it'd be a nice deterrent on fraud if anyone convicted of major fraud in a jurisdiction can never get insurance within that jurisdiction ever again. Mean-spirited? Perhaps. But a heck of a deterrent.


__________________
RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.
  #750  
Old September 10th, 2009, 4:27 pm
monster_mom's Avatar
monster_mom  Female.gif monster_mom is offline
Curse Breaker
 
Joined: 4961 days
Location: Elmo's World
Age: 51
Posts: 7,344
Re: Health Care Politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
Thanks for the latter clarification Mom. Personally, I'd have no issue with either a federal-run or state-run system of pools. I'd like to have a federal option which has to accept people (exception: those convicted of medicare / medicaid / etc fraud can be left out, for all I care) whom all other plans fail to accept.
I totally agree. I think we need to make sure there's some sort of help for people whose medical conditions result in really high premiums. State run plans could be separate plans or they could be opening the state employee health benefit plans to state residents (because most of those plans have guaranteed issue and community rating within that given community).

Funding is a very big issue for all of the plans. Since the CBO hasn't estimated the cost of HR 3400, there's really no way to know how much it might cost. It could be that it could be funded with a .5% cut in non-defense spending or a 2% cut. It could be that what we saw was just some guy in his basement tossing out speculation that got picked up and developed a life of it's own. I have no clue.


__________________
We don't belong to the government, the government belongs to us - - Mitt Romney


Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years? - - Paul Ryan
  #751  
Old September 10th, 2009, 7:54 pm
OldLupin's Avatar
OldLupin  Male.gif OldLupin is offline
Forum Elephant
 
Joined: 5477 days
Location: Absurdistan
Age: 48
Posts: 2,412
Re: Health Care Politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
I thought HR 3400 had similar provisions, except for where they set the cutoffs for medicaid and tax credits, but that HR 3400 didn't account for what happens if someone over the medicaid enrollment cutoff tries to buy private insurance with the tax credit but cannot. The Obama / Baucus plan appears to address this loophole by setting up insurance exchanges and by keeping open the idea of a public option - a safeguard that, unless I'm mistaken, the republican plan lacks.
The Republican plan lacks a "public option" and a mandatory insurance clause for a reason. The plan is designed to make access far easier and less expensive, but it doesn't presume to force anyone to do something against their will. It also requires at least a minimal effort on the part of the individual to shop for health coverage. These are important destinctions, IMO as they are symptomatic of overall philosophy about this subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
I take it your "double paying" complaint is the subsidizing of others' insurance through taxes along with however you buy your own insurance. I don't understand, however, how that'd be different if we take HR 3400 - you'd still be subsidizing others' through taxes.
First of all, that wasn't a complaint, it was an observation. Second of all, it isn't a matter of subsidizing others it is a matter of funding an entire beauracracy that would be a publicly funded healthcare provider while still paying for private care, which as I stated before, would be impractical for most people in the same way education "double pay" is impractical for most people. Maybe I wasn't clear enough that this is a predictable outcome to the proposed "public option" and the cause to effect relationship that facilitates that end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
And both plans leave open the option to buy private insurance - the Republican plan through existing marketplaces and the Baucus / Obama plan through a new marketplace designed to overcome some of the shortcomings of the existing marketplaces.
Again we come back to the question: is there really a choice? If a public funded health provider becomes available, as I have already said, then it would quickly become a primary option, despite any effort to minimize private insurance costs. It will be less expensive because of government financial support, or it will be useless and unbelievably expensive if it is solely funded from premiums from people who already can't get market insurance.

Of course mandating that everyone will have insurance and that providers will have no option to refuse massive liability clients, has no chance of reducing insurance costs on the private market. The public option would quickly become the primary option for most people. What would posibly stop that from happening? Where is the status quo reached where the "public option" is left as a suplimentary insurance and how is that funded?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
Thus, unless you oppose both plans, I don't see how the alternative is actually different (leaving open the possibility that your income range is in the range where the Republican plan gives a tax credit and the Democratic plan does not, if such a range exists).
It is very different, for reasons I have expressed repeatedly. The "public option" is the single factor I completely reject. I think I have more than once expressed why and even ask for contrary ideas as to any flaw in my assessment, but as yet have not recieved any. It is simply the difference between manipulating the market for advantage and bypassing private provision with government's direct intervention.

We already pay for benifits through the state for our fellow Americans. I have no problem with that. I have a serious problem with overpaying and under-recieving because of government intervention. As I see that as an almost inevitable outcome, the government's "public option" is just plain bad, IMO, terribly, horribly bad.

There seems to be some disconnect in what I am saying and what is being replied. I am not sure if that is due to my not being clear or deliberately ignoring the main onus of what I have been posting, but hopefully my issue with the plan is more plain now than it was before.


__________________


Vote your own issues. Nah, just vote the way I tell you to.
  #752  
Old September 10th, 2009, 8:17 pm
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Custodian of Hades Vault
 
Joined: 4815 days
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,653
Re: Health Care Politics

Im afraid I still don't see the difference (double-payment-wise, not mandated insurance-buy-wise) between receiving a tax credit under the Baucus / Obama plan or getting enrolled in medicaid vs receiving a tax credit under the Republican plan or getting enrolled in medicaid, with the tax credit under both plans being used to help buy coverage. In either regard taxpayer money is being used to subsidize insurance buys (tax credits) or medicaid. This is true independent of whether the public option exists or not - even without a public option taxpayer money is going to be put into the system to help out those who are less able to buy plans. If you're not a recipient of the tax credit, you're going to be double paying via subsidizing others' tax credits and medicaid payments either way. If you are a recipient of the tax credit, then you're not going to be double paying unless the tax credit doesn't get you all of your money refunded by the government, in which case you're in a fuzzy grey area in which it's individual-situation dependent.

The biggest difference I see is that the Baucus / Obama plan leaves open the alternative to have a public option (though Obama did not mandate it, he just endorsed it - big difference there), which I like because of my aforementioned (and apparently rejected) argument that there has to be an alternative available for those who get rejected by all. This could also work by mandating that the state or federal-run co-ops / pools have to accept the patients being rejected by the insurance companies now - I'm open to that idea. I know that the state pools are designed to be for these patients, but unless it's an absolute mandate, there's the wiggle room. I want to make sure that there isn't a way for the state co-ops to wiggle out of covering a patient like there are ways for the insurance companies to wiggle out now.

The entire idea behind making everyone pay into the system (hardship waiver-grantees excepted) is that gives the biggest possible pool so that the premiums, etc can remain the lowest possible. The mechanism the Baucus plan has apparently chosen to ensure compliance is similar to that of the Netherlands and a few other countries where there is a penalty for not carrying insurance. I can see how some people, especially those around my age, don't like the "must have" provision, since we tend to think we're invincible. I think a better solution may be to require those receiving the tax credit to buy insurance, with the tax credit being revoked if no insurance is bought (aka the tax credit is pocketed), and if those above the income line for the tax credit don't want insurance or want only "catastrophic illness insurance", that's OK, since they presumably have the means to pay for themselves. And anyone who is below the threshold to automatically receive medicaid should be automatically enrolled, so if they, say, show up at the ER then they're already covered, even if they didn't know it.

***

As to why Obama doesn't sign an executive order to implement the cost savings now? My best guess is that some of them require a law change instead of just an executive order.

***
Politifact's article on the speech is kinder than the AP one, for two reasons: first, Obama cleaned up a couple small factual inaccuracies that had been in there before, and second because they don't tackle the issue of payment for it. Though I do want to know more about the provision he mentioned where automatic cost-cutting measures in other areas kick in in the event that the health care reform is costing too much. Details would be nice.


__________________
RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.
  #753  
Old September 10th, 2009, 10:18 pm
monster_mom's Avatar
monster_mom  Female.gif monster_mom is offline
Curse Breaker
 
Joined: 4961 days
Location: Elmo's World
Age: 51
Posts: 7,344
Re: Health Care Politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
The biggest difference I see is that the Baucus / Obama plan leaves open the alternative to have a public option (though Obama did not mandate it, he just endorsed it - big difference there), which I like because of my aforementioned (and apparently rejected) argument that there has to be an alternative available for those who get rejected by all. This could also work by mandating that the state or federal-run co-ops / pools have to accept the patients being rejected by the insurance companies now - I'm open to that idea. I know that the state pools are designed to be for these patients, but unless it's an absolute mandate, there's the wiggle room. I want to make sure that there isn't a way for the state co-ops to wiggle out of covering a patient like there are ways for the insurance companies to wiggle out now.
Ok, I'm confused. I'm not sure what you mean by a mandate. A mandate by who, against whom, and for what?

Under the Republican plan states would be required to set up high risk pools and would be given seed money to do so. Those pools could take whatever form the states believe best address the needs of their residents, but each state would be required to set one up. Residents would be eligible to enter the high risk pool if the cost of premiums from plans offered by their employer, a membership organization, or an association exceeded 1.5 times the national average. Whether an individual chooses to enroll in one of those plans or not is left to the individual rather than mandated.

Under the Democrats plan insurance companies are required to accept any person who applied and are required to offer community rated plans (which means the same price will be paid by every person in that plan no matter what medical conditions they may or may not have). Further, every person in this country is required to obtain basic coverage - whether they want it or not.

I'm not sure if that clarifies what needed to be clarified or whether anything even needed to be clarified, but I hope it helps!

Quote:
The entire idea behind making everyone pay into the system (hardship waiver-grantees excepted) is that gives the biggest possible pool so that the premiums, etc can remain the lowest possible. The mechanism the Baucus plan has apparently chosen to ensure compliance is similar to that of the Netherlands and a few other countries where there is a penalty for not carrying insurance. I can see how some people, especially those around my age, don't like the "must have" provision, since we tend to think we're invincible. I think a better solution may be to require those receiving the tax credit to buy insurance, with the tax credit being revoked if no insurance is bought (aka the tax credit is pocketed), and if those above the income line for the tax credit don't want insurance or want only "catastrophic illness insurance", that's OK, since they presumably have the means to pay for themselves. And anyone who is below the threshold to automatically receive medicaid should be automatically enrolled, so if they, say, show up at the ER then they're already covered, even if they didn't know it.
Since the Democrats plan doesn't have tax credits, I'll assume this is about the Republic plan (though I may be wrong cause I'm just really confused about what we're talking about).

Under the Republican plan the refundable tax credit is only available to qualifying individuals for paying health insurance premiums. The deduction is likewise only for the amounts actually paid by an individual for insurance premiums. If you try to deduct or file for a credit for costs you didn't incur, then you committed tax fraud and could go to jail.

Medicaid is currently available to anyone whose income is under 1.33 times the federal poverty level (and other requirements). Enrollment in Medicaid and SCHIP is automatic if you show up at a medical facility. So if you show up at a hospital and need care and you qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP, you'll be automatically enrolled. That's the current law and I don't think that will change with either plan.

Quote:
Politifact's article on the speech is kinder than the AP one, for two reasons: first, Obama cleaned up a couple small factual inaccuracies that had been in there before, and second because they don't tackle the issue of payment for it. Though I do want to know more about the provision he mentioned where automatic cost-cutting measures in other areas kick in in the event that the health care reform is costing too much. Details would be nice.
Details on this would be very nice because when we're talking about health care automatic cost cutting measures implies rationing to me because that's the only substantial way to cut costs quickly.


__________________
We don't belong to the government, the government belongs to us - - Mitt Romney


Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years? - - Paul Ryan

Last edited by monster_mom; September 10th, 2009 at 10:20 pm.
  #754  
Old September 10th, 2009, 11:07 pm
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Custodian of Hades Vault
 
Joined: 4815 days
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,653
Re: Health Care Politics

a) I was talking about the state plans having to accept any person people from their state, instead of them being set up for high-risk patients and then they'd find a way to reject someone who applied for it. I presume that would be the goal, but I want to make sure the language of any co-op is clear that there isn't a way to reject coverage unless the person has been convicted of major medical fraud. According to the summary I link below, the co-ops will be state-based under Baucus' plan.

b) I was talking the Baucus / Obama plan, not HR 3200. According to the white paper and other reports, it's got tax credits in it, unlike HR 3200. I'm making a bet now that the final bill will be far closer tot he Baucus proposal than HR 3200 so that's why I am focusing on it. Obama's speech last night also made it the "Obama / Baucus" or "Baucus / Obama" plan to me. Best summary I could find fast, though the picture of Baucus is simply horrifying (someone at CBS news must dislike him). Tax credits from 133 to 300% of the poverty line (sliding scale), interstate insurance shopping in 2015, co-ops, tax credits for < 25 employee small businesses, a fee (not to exceed the tax credits given) to employers with > 50 employees who don't give health coverage with the idea being that the company still pays for it but the individual gets coverage via a co-op, and a few other things are the highlights. They use the term "Health Flexible Savings Accounts", which confuses me because it merges the HSA and FSA concepts in my mind; maybe it's just for the FSA's. That needs clarification to me.

c) I think it's an open question whether it's cost-cutting within the health framework or outside of it or both. Thus, it doesn't necessarily mean rationing to me, and besides, the government has a relatively low bar to jump over when it comes to being better than some insurance plans (not all - some are quite good, but some aren't) when it comes to "rationing" care. Other ways to cut costs would be to freeze the increase in medicare reimbursements to docs for a few years, to cut a few items from the defense budget, to freeze NASA or NIH or FEMA or some other program's budget, etc. I don't automatically think rationing, but maybe that's because I have less fear and less automatic distrust of the government than some. But, details would help clarify.

ETA: It's about darned time factcheck got theirs up. Again, generally high marks, they note that Obama's careful rewording on the number of uninsured (citizens instead of residents now) and the Medicare vote from earlier this year ended up far more accurate than the DNC ad or other materials. Biggest demerit? Same as on politifact and the AP - the paying for the plan. Second biggest? Factcheck doesn't like the 1000 / family figure for ER visits by uninsured; they claim it's more like 200 / family, and they think that it cuts into hospital profits.

And, factcheck's fact check of Boustany's response. False claims? 53 new bueurocracies (they quibble with the term bueurocracies while giving marks for the descriptions of each position the House Republican Conference provides), and the tort reform saving $$, since their research has shown that states which implement tort reform don't get savings out of it (rather unfortunately). They also re-knock the $500 billion in cuts claim that they've repeatedly said is false. They don't like the phrasing of the $600 billion in taxes on job creators.


__________________
RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.

Last edited by Chris; September 11th, 2009 at 1:29 am.
  #755  
Old September 10th, 2009, 11:40 pm
canismajoris  Male.gif canismajoris is offline
The Forums Red Hypergiant Star
 
Joined: 5153 days
Location: əɹəɥ
Age: 36
Posts: 2,766
Re: Health Care Politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by USNAGator91 View Post
Your right, the president's speech was nothing more than partisan rhetoric, full of half truths and out right falsehoods. All he did was prop up HR3200 which was the source of angst in August. He made no move to clarify issues. The sum total of his speech was to bash opponents and tell them he's coming after them.
I wasn't commenting on the president's speech, so I'm at a loss to respond to this. I haven't heard or read the speech, but I've had the impression from listening to commentary that as usual most people heard only what they wanted to hear. Glad to see you confirm that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldLupin View Post
Is that how you heard it? So if there is a "government option" why would most people continue to keep their health insurance? Even in the language of the speech, if I changed jobs, why, and more importantly, how, would I be able to justify in my limited budget a move from the "government option" back to private insurance when I have to effectively pay for both? Of course he didn't directly say the government was taking over healthcare, he minimized the government action and maximized private insurance while in effect forwarding a plan that would effectively eliminate private insurance over time.

There is the posibility of a choice, just like with education, or military/VA or medicare, but the choice is unrealistic in nature. If the options are pay for government care and in addition buy private care or use the government care you are already paying for, what choice is really available for the vast majority of people? That isn't rhetoric, it is reasonable cause and effect. What in anything said prohibits that exact outcome and what in history or human nature would stop that chain reaction?
How I heard what? You also seem to have misunderstood. I was responding to the post I quoted. I find it remarkable that you like so many others are able to not only know the motives of Congress but predict what they will do on some unforeseen slippery slope.

I also find it amusing that simultaneously people argue that a) the plan is practically done and it's being rammed through and b) all these terrible things might happen that aren't actually in the bill but will be some day. Like the outburst that the President was lying about illegal immigrants being covered under a public plan. Clearly this is not in any of the plans being considered if I can trust my own reading and reporting, but opponents just know that the public plan is being designed to allow them to sneak in under the radar. That's the kind of rhetoric I'm talking about--no content, just angst. Whatever the president said to Congress.... well.... irrelevant.


  #756  
Old September 11th, 2009, 2:07 am
Wab's Avatar
Wab  Undisclosed.gif Wab is offline
The Next Great Adventurer
 
Joined: 5990 days
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 15,280
Re: Health Care Politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by USNAGator91 View Post
Apparently "doing nothing" eliminated 16 million uninsured from their problems in one month. At this rate, why not just "do nothing" for two more months and everyone will be insured???
He said no such thing as anyone who is honest and understands English will realise. Almost 46 million is more than 30 million, however you count.


__________________
A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It's something other people should call you -- you shouldn't call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. -- Donald Woods

You got what anybody gets . . . You got a lifetime. -- Death of the Endless
  #757  
Old September 11th, 2009, 2:23 am
Hes's Avatar
Hes  Female.gif Hes is offline
Embroidered by imaginatio
 
Joined: 5546 days
Location: One second out of sync
Age: 38
Posts: 5,979
Re: Health Care Politics

Wow aren't we just a couple of fluffy bunnies in here, commenting and responding to each other in the most friendly way!

Time for a new thread. Preferably one with out doubting people's honesty etc.


If anyone has suggestions for version 2, please owl Chris with your suggestions.



Last edited by Hes; September 11th, 2009 at 2:40 am.
  #758  
Old September 11th, 2009, 4:14 pm
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Custodian of Hades Vault
 
Joined: 4815 days
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,653
Re: Health Care Politics

Version 2 is here.


__________________
RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.
 
Go Back  Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Non Harry Potter Archives

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 9:40 am.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Original content is Copyright MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright its respective owners.