About to get a look at Obama's health care plan

[Starlifter756]

The President's Health Care Plan has noting to do with Health Care but everything to do with insurance!!

What I mean is that to prevent him from going down in history as the person that took the county to the brink of bankruptcy, he needs these insurance funds to pay some - and only some - of these loans off. We are now paying ~$1,000,000,000.00 per day (~$400M per year) in interest payments. If his budget goes through and does not pass this insurance plan - estimates are that we will be paying ~$800B (with a B) per year. We had in 2008 taxable revenue to the Government of $485B (projected to be $365B in 2009 and lower in 2010). We will be paying 2X the taxable revenue to the Government in interest alone.

Additionally, increased taxable income to the Government is unlikely with the current unemployment rate coupled with the higher taxes which leads to less disposable income in which businesses can invest and therefore hire people.

This is why the relentless push for National "Health Care" is important to this administration AND why they wanted us to pay for this for 4 years before any benefits were realized.

Lastly, Hawaii had a State-wide insurance program and it was bankrupt in 7 months. Additionally, Massachusetts has a State-wide insurance program and have the highest rates in the country. The stimulus, bailouts, corporate tax cuts and incentives, and other corrupted financial incentives can not be paid for within our current tax structure - So, this administration is screwed either way; but he can at least claim some success by "Health Care" even though we as ordinary citizens are screwed either way.

 

[Pushrod]

The President's Health Care Plan has noting to do with Health Care but everything to do with insurance!!

What I mean is that to prevent him from going down in history as the person that took the county to the brink of bankruptcy, he needs these insurance funds to pay some - and only some - of these loans off. We are now paying ~$1,000,000,000.00 per day (~$400M per year) in interest payments. If his budget goes through and does not pass this insurance plan - estimates are that we will be paying ~$800B (with a B) per year. We had in 2008 taxable revenue to the Government of $485B (projected to be $365B in 2009 and lower in 2010). We will be paying 2X the taxable revenue to the Government in interest alone.

Additionally, increased taxable income to the Government is unlikely with the current unemployment rate coupled with the higher taxes which leads to less disposable income in which businesses can invest and therefore hire people.

This is why the relentless push for National "Health Care" is important to this administration AND why they wanted us to pay for this for 4 years before any benefits were realized.

Lastly, Hawaii had a State-wide insurance program and it was bankrupt in 7 months. Additionally, Massachusetts has a State-wide insurance program and have the highest rates in the country. The stimulus, bailouts, corporate tax cuts and incentives, and other corrupted financial incentives can not be paid for within our current tax structure - So, this administration is screwed either way; but he can at least claim some success by "Health Care" even though we as ordinary citizens are screwed either way.

I agree with all that you say in your above post. Unfortunately, I don't think most of the general public knows or understands any of this, and they just hear free healthcare and give two thumbs up and say "Yeah, that's what we need, damn the torpeados!"

Luckily the Tea-Party movement has woken a lot of the public to what is happening with our Constitutional Republic and may yet be able to hold off this travesty. We all need to be involved and let our voices be heard that this is not what we as America want and that it violates the Rule of Law which is our Constitution!

 

[ImnoMensa]

Obama's new bill does not include the Public Option, but it will surely appear just as the clouds bring rain, because private insurance cannot survive with Government setting their rates.

 

[bcp]

unless public option means I have a choice to pay additional taxes to cover this, the option is basically of no value to me either.

and not to be cold hearted but, I pretty much think that those that work pay enough to support those that refuse already.

so, seems that the less care the lazy have, the less lazy we might have a few years down the road. weed out the weak.

 

[Tilted]

Tilted, from the media reports I've read the WH is taking the position that the proposal is an "opening bid" in the renewed the health care debate so there might be some posturing going on. I don't like the bill. I am for starting over again with much lower ambitions. However, I would like to see the Republicans put for the effort to make a counter-proposal.

Assuming it's intended to be an 'opening bid', it's a delusional one or an incredibly arrogant one - that is to say, it evinces that he either (1) doesn't recognize reality with regard to what happened last year with the health care proposals or (2) doesn't care about that reality, because it isn't the reality he wants to exist, so he chooses to live and behave as if the reality he desires is the actual reality.

Let me use an analogy to illustrate my point. Let's say you are trying to sell someone a car, and you shoot them a price of, say, $50,000. They respond - 'No way, that's way too much.' So, you come back and say - 'Okay, how about $45,000?' And, their response is - 'No f-ing way, are you serious - that's way too much - there's no chance in hell that we are gonna buy that car for $45,000, PERIOD.' So, you say - 'Okay, let me see what I can do - I'll come up with a something a little more reasonable, so we can get this deal done and everyone can be happy.' After 'working' on it for a while, you come back and say - 'Okay now, how about $47,000?'

WTH? Did you forget that you had been told, unequivocally, that $45,000 was too high? Or, did you remember that, and you were just hoping they would forget what they told you or not notice that $47,000 is higher than $45,000 (maybe because when you said it you added that you were trying to be more agree-able and understanding of their position)? Or, did you just not care, because you were gonna make them by the car at the price you wanted, their willingness or lack thereof notwithstanding? That's arrogance. At the very most, the new 'opening bid' should have been $44,000 - frankly, it should have been more like $30,000.

The opposition won the public debate over the last health care reform proposals. $45,000, as being too high, lost as an acceptable price for the car. Does any serious doubt remain about that? Now, I've acknowledged in the past that that was likely due, in some part, to the opposition doing a better PR job - some of the public was mislead into believing things about the proposals that weren't quite accurate, and that presented them in less desirable lights - but that doesn't change the reality that the health care reform proposals lost the debate. President Obama's 'new' proposal moves in the wrong direction - the previous proposals themselves were rejected because they were seen as going too far in that particular direction. What part of no does President Obama not understand? I refer back to my open letter to his mother on that.

As for counter-proposals, I believe some have been made - though I've paid little attention to them. That said, the always implicit counter-proposal to a suggestion that is a net negative is to do nothing. Though doing nothing is not a great plan, it is better than this plan. With regard to improving health care quality relative to health care cost (or vice versa), this reform plan lacks sufficient mechanisms to do either. The planet would likely need to drift perilously close to a worm hole (i.e. and distort the ordinary physical laws of our existence) in order for this plan to not do significant harm in that regard. This plan is wealth redistribution, plan and simple. Whether or not that is good (or even acceptable) public policy is another issue and debate - but we should at least be honest about what we are trying to do.

This isn't trying to 'fix' our health care system - it is trying to make some people pay for other people's health care for them (to an even greater degree than that already happens). That is an entirely different thing. The Administration should state that goal outright, so that we could undertake the first thing rightfully necessary to accomplishing it - a public debate about whether or not we ought to do it and whether or not it is acceptable to do it. That's the crucial element of that particular goal. Assuming we accept it as good public policy, the details of doing it would be rather easy - and wouldn't require all of the inefficient, convoluted legislation that has been devised to obscure the fact that that is, in reality, the goal we are pursuing.

As for my own counter-proposal, I restate what I've stated many times - the single best, easiest, and most effective policy change we could make, if we desire to 'improve' the health care system, is to repeal the tax incentives we offer to encourages paying people with 'health care benefits' instead of cash. If we think the pricing of a product is too high, shouldn't we stop creating artificial demand for it? There's just no way around the reality that doing so inflates its pricing.

 

[SamSpade]

With the new tactic of reconciliation, he doesn't have to lower his bid. In fact, if he intends to shove this thing through under reconciliation, he can UP it all he wants and strip it of the compromises and deals he had earlier - because he doesn't need the votes.

Which makes perfect sense, if that's how he intends to go about it, and is in keeping with his stated ideology.

That said - I have to say, I don't get it. If this plan is intended to be the solution to a stated set of lofty goals, it's not only paying lip service to it, but those proposing such must KNOW this. They have to know that the stated purpose runs far afield from what may become the outcome.

One is, a lot of people will get free healthcare. That's the allure of the "public option" and government run care - that your taxes cover it, but otherwise, your health care cost worries are over. You go to the doctor anytime you want, it's "free". And you're always going to get those votes.

For others, it will be closer to free than what they have now. And they'll have the "security" that extreme needs will be covered, because the government requires it, and they won't lose insurance jumping from job to job or in the event they are more seriously ill than an insurance company is willing to pay.

For both of these groups, free or nearly free is worth the cost of standing in line. Movies and concerts aren't free, and people stand in line for them - if they were free, would it matter?

But for the rest of us - it will cost more AND it will have the added headache of government bureaucracy. And because we really DON'T have the money, it's going to cost future generations, and cripple the economy.

So knowing this, why does anyone endorse it? Because it gives a little more power to one party for a few more years. I mean, that is all I can come up with. It doesn't save money; it doesn't provide better care; it doesn't drive down costs; it doesn't ensure everyone gets covered; it doesn't make premiums cheaper; and it DOES a host of things, such as drive up debt, create rationing, drive UP costs, create bureaucracy and government intrusion, I can't see the upside.

Frankly, they could do a lot more good simply GIVING people money to buy insurance.

 

[Tilted]

With the new tactic of reconciliation, he doesn't have to lower his bid. In fact, if he intends to shove this thing through under reconciliation, he can UP it all he wants and strip it of the compromises and deals he had earlier - because he doesn't need the votes.

Which makes perfect sense, if that's how he intends to go about it, and is in keeping with his stated ideology.

I'm not so sure Sam. Remember, the House bill barely passed the House - it barely got a simple majority. The Democratic caucus in the House had conflicting aims to begin with. Making the bill too 'aggressive' risked the loss of some members on one end of the party, and making the bill too 'conservative' risked the loss of some members on the other. That was the reality before Massachusetts. After Massachusetts, certainly some of those that were already hesitant to vote for a bill that was too 'aggressive', became more so.

There are almost surely a fair number of Representatives, ones from more moderate or conservative districts, that now believe voting for anything resembling the current plans will all but insure their defeat in November. How many are there? Obviously, that's hard to precisely evaluate. One thing to consider though, is that time is working against them - we are getting closer and closer to election time, and that means that their vote will be fresher in the minds of their constituents. They'd have been better off if they could have gotten it done last year, so that they'd have had a little more time insulation. How many of this Representatives are willing to sacrifice themselves for the party's cause, even if they see it as the greater good?

Frankly, they could do a lot more good simply GIVING people money to buy insurance.

That's essentially what the proposals would do - or a big part of what they would do. They would add some people to the Medicaid programs and give others subsidies to buy insurance - without regard to whether or not they get their insurance from a 'public option', or even whether or not the proposals provide for a 'public option'.

 

[Lenny]

I'm sure this question gets asked a lot but - how on Earth is it that the Executive Branch gets to propose new legislation?

I know it happens more than I'd like, but how is that ever legal?

The Kenyan authoring a bill is no different than a lobbyist in Eastern PA authoring a bill for John Murtha.

 

[Tilted]

I did a google search and didn't find anything confirming this yet - has anyone heard anything on any of the news networks? Something to this effect was in the bill that passed the House, but there wasn't anything to this effect in the bill that passed the Senate.

Obama backs repeal of decades-old antitrust exemption for health insurance companies - latimes.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House says President Barack Obama supports stripping the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws.

The House will soon vote on legislation to repeal the health insurance industry's decades-old exemption from federal antitrust laws, a measure strongly supported by Democrats. However, prospects in the Senate are unclear. Industry analysts say losing the exemption would not have a major effect on the way health insurance companies do business.

 

[ylexot]

I did a google search and didn't find anything confirming this yet - has anyone heard anything on any of the news networks? Something to this effect was in the bill that passed the House, but there wasn't anything to this effect in the bill that passed the Senate.

Obama backs repeal of decades-old antitrust exemption for health insurance companies - latimes.com

Is this breaking the state-to-state monopolies?

 

[czygvtwkr]

Tilted, from the media reports I've read the WH is taking the position that the proposal is an "opening bid" in the renewed the health care debate so there might be some posturing going on. I don't like the bill. I am for starting over again with much lower ambitions. However, I would like to see the Republicans put for the effort to make a counter-proposal.

Why do you think things need to be changed? The problem with things is everyone in an elected position thinks they need to help create more laws. We are in recession because of this need to meddle by politicians.

 

[4Father]

Why do you think things need to be changed? The problem with things is everyone in an elected position thinks they need to help create more laws. We are in recession because of this need to meddle by politicians.

Because I pay more than $14,000 per year in health insurance premiums for my family. I don't support the current version of the plan, but I would like that number to go down.

 

[Starlifter756]

Because I pay more than $14,000 per year in health insurance premiums for my family. I don't support the current version of the plan, but I would like that number to go down.

I heard that $1000 per year currently comes out of every premium to pay for the uninsured. So, that is roughly 10% from everyone and it is still not enough. It will never be enough.

As I stated earlier, it is not about health care - it is about the premiums whether through additional income taxes, investment taxes, death taxes, value-added tax, or any other tax they can think of. We are going bankrupt as a result of his stimulus and wealth redistribution.

It is estimated that the Government is has an efficiency of 20%. So, for every dollar collected and processed through the Federal machine, 80% goes to pass-throughs and waste and 20% actually makes it where it was intended.

This is why we will never, ever, be able to pay the costs of a welfare state.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Because I pay more than $14,000 per year in health insurance premiums for my family. I don't support the current version of the plan, but I would like that number to go down.

So you want me to pay part of it, eh?

 

[Starlifter756]

INCREDIBLE. Another example of where we are heading.

snopes.com: Parkland Memorial Hospital and Illegal Immigrants

 

[4Father]

So you want me to pay part of it, eh?

I never said that. I want to pay a premium that is reasonably related to the services I use with some room for profit for the insurer and the provider. As it stands now I pay my insurance premiums, my deductibles, and taxes for medicare, medicaid and social security which I receive no benefit from. That's not a fair setup. You think it's perfect?

 

[4Father]

I did a google search and didn't find anything confirming this yet - has anyone heard anything on any of the news networks? Something to this effect was in the bill that passed the House, but there wasn't anything to this effect in the bill that passed the Senate.

Obama backs repeal of decades-old antitrust exemption for health insurance companies - latimes.com

Any news on this? I may be wrong but my gut feeling is that killing the monopolies would let more insurers compete for my business. Competition could lead to lower premiums and better coverage.

Edit - After researching some more it seems that to really work insurers need to allowed to compete nationally, not just within a state.

 

[Tilted]

Any news on this? I may be wrong but my gut feeling is that killing the monopolies would let more insurers compete for my business. Competition could lead to lower premiums and better coverage.

Edit - After researching some more it seems that to really work insurers need to allowed to compete nationally, not just within a state.

I hadn't seen any news about it, and I haven't been able to find a bill in the House, but google found this CNN article. Apparently, Press Secretary Gibbs spoke to the issue. This is why I tune out so much of the political rhetoric (and focus on the substance), nobody in Washington seems committed to being forthright when they speak to issues or advocate for policy. What he is quoted as saying in the second paragraph below isn't accurate. The President's Press Secretary should get such important details right if he's going to speak to these kinds of things - some people that aren't aware of the situation are looking to him as a source of information.

"At its core, health reform is all about ensuring that American families and businesses have more choices, benefit from more competition and have greater control over their own health care," Gibbs said.

"Repealing this exemption is an important part of that effort. Today, there are no rules outlawing bid rigging, price fixing and other insurance company practices that will drive up health care costs and often drive up their own profits as well."

Gibbs said the president is not seeking repeal of the exemption in lieu of broader changes to the insurance market. "This is a complementary step along the way," he said.

Without seeing the text of any new legislation, I'm gonna assume that what they are talking about doing is similar to the provision in the House's health care bill which I mentioned here.

 

[SamSpade]

I'm not so sure Sam. Remember, the House bill barely passed the House - it barely got a simple majority.

Saw something early this morning on FOX (in one of the rare moments I watch TV news) where this observation was made.

Some stuff I didn't know - if you want to push through reconciliation, it has to be strictly budgetary and taxes. You can't craft a new bill. Which means, the Senate bill has to pass the House (I think) without any changes they'd want. The previous House bill passed 220-215. Since then, one person has died, another has switched parties and there were a few others mentioned. (The Republican from Louisiana who voted for it last time said he would NOT this time). I think the result was, it would at best TIE, and ties lose in the House. The comment was also made that the House would almost certainly not vote in greater numbers for the Senate bill, because it lacks provisions they put into theirs. A further comment was made there are 50 Blue Dogs, and they're going to resist voting for it.

Bottom line, unless they're some major rallying of every Democrat, it hasn't a chance. And if it loses, it's probably gone for good.

 

[Toxick]

It is estimated that the Government is has an efficiency of 20%.

That's WAY higher than I would've guessed.