Monday, November 9, 2009

House passes health care reform over the weekend.

Well we made it back from the woods with meat in the locker and our lives intact. While the viewing of deer was rare, the use of the rifle when needed was not. At 7:47 a.m. on Sunday the woods saw a young buck meet their maker with one shot from 50 yards away. Just a few hours before the rain moved. With a successful hunt under the belt, I was saddened to hear that Pelosi's health care bill passed by two votes over the weekend. Let's hope the Senate is a bit wiser and properly vets their bill to ensure that we do not see additional taxes and increases to our deficit. Here is a link to H.R. 3962 to read it for yourself: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

Here is what the Left points out (http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml):


Increasing choice and competition. The bill will protect and improve consumers' choices.

  • If people like their current plans, they will be able to keep them.
  • For individuals who aren't currently covered by their employer, and some small businesses, the proposal will establish a new Health Insurance Exchange where consumers can comparison shop from a menu of affordable, quality health care options that will include private plans, health co-ops, and a new public health insurance option. The public health insurance option will play on a level playing field with private insurers, spurring additional competition.
  • This Exchange will create competition based on quality and price that leads to better coverage and care. Patients and doctors will have control over decisions about their health care, instead of insurance companies.

Giving Americans peace of mind. The legislation will ensure that Americans have portable, secure health care coverage – so that they won't lose care if their employer drops their plan or they lose their job.

  • Every American who receives coverage through the Exchange will have a plan that includes standardized, comprehensive and quality health care benefits.
  • It will end increases in premiums or denials of care based on pre-existing conditions, race, or gender, and strictly limit age rating.
  • The proposal will also eliminate co-pays for preventive care, and cap out-of-pocket expenses to protects every American from bankruptcy.

Improving quality of care for every American. The legislation will ensure that Americans of all ages, from young children to retirees have access to greater quality of care by focusing on prevention, wellness, and strengthening programs that work.

  • Guarantees that every child in America will have health care coverage that includes dental, hearing and vision benefits.
  • Provides better preventive and wellness care. Every health care plan offered through the exchange and by employers after a grace period will cover preventive care at no cost to the patient.
  • Increases the health care workforce to ensure that more doctors and nurses are available to provide quality care as more Americans get coverage.
  • Strengthens Medicare and Medicaid and closes the Medicare Part D 'donut hole' so that seniors and low-income Americans receive better quality of care and see lower prescription drug costs and out-of-pocket expenses.

Ensuring shared responsibility. The bill will ensure that individuals, employers, and the federal government share responsibility for a quality and affordable health care system.

  • Employers can continue offering coverage to workers, and those who choose not to offer coverage contribute a fee of eight percent of payroll.
  • All individuals will generally be required to get coverage, either through their employer or the exchange, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, subject to a hardship exemption.
  • The federal government will provide affordability credits, available on a sliding scale for low- and middle-income individuals and families to make premiums affordable and reduce cost-sharing.

Protecting consumers and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. The legislation will put the interests of consumers first, protect them from problems in getting and keeping health care coverage, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.

  • Provides transparency in plans in the Health Exchange so that consumers have the clear, complete information, in plain English, needed to select the plan that best meets their needs.
  • Establishes consumer advocacy offices as part of the Exchange in order to protect consumers, answer questions, and assist with any problems related to their plans.
  • Simplifies paperwork and other administrative burdens. Patients, doctors, nurses, insurance companies, providers, and employers will all encounter a streamlined, less confusing, more consumer friendly system.
  • Increases funding of efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse; creates enhanced oversight of Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Reducing the deficit and ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid. The legislation will be entirely paid for – it will not add a dime to the deficit. It will also put Medicare and Medicaid on the path to a more fiscally sound future, so seniors and low-income Americans can continue to receive the quality health care benefits for years to come.

  • Pays for the entire cost of the legislation though a combination of savings achieved by making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient – without cutting seniors' benefits in any way – and  revenue generated from placing a surcharge the top 0.3 percent of all households in the U.S.(married couples with adjusted gross income of over $1,000,000) and other tax measures.
  • The Congressional Budget estimates the bill will reduce the deficit by at least $100 billion over ten years.
  • Estimates also show the bill will slow the rate of growth of the Medicare program from 6.6 percent annually to 5.3 percent annually.

Here is what the Right says (email for Rep. John Kline):

The Pelosi health care bill will cost at least $1.3 trillion and includes $730 billion in new taxes and $500 billion in cuts to Medicare.

For nearly four months, Americans have voiced their overwhelming concerns with a government takeover of health care, yet majority leadership in Congress recklessly plugged its ears today and rammed through a health care bill that leads to new government mandates, bureaucratic red tape, and stifling tax increases. What passed today fails to even come close to the commonsense, bipartisan reform the American people need and deserve.

The consequences of the Pelosi health care bill include:

  • Americans who like their employer-provided health care will lose it.
  • Seniors who depend upon Medicare coverage – especially Medicare Advantage – will lose it.
  • Taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for massive new entitlement spending.
  • Small businesses will be taxed, and taxed, and taxed again.
  • Employers will face new state court liability.
  • Federal bureaucrats will determine what health care coverage is "acceptable."
  • Millions of Americans will be pushed into a new, government-run plan modeled on broken government entitlement programs.
  • Millions more Americans will be forced into a broken Medicaid system.
  • Government-run health care will continue to underpay hospitals, making it difficult for patients to get care and driving up costs in the rest of the system.
  • Junk lawsuits will persist in promoting defensive medicine and passing higher costs on to patients.


 

Obviously the true answer is somewhere in the middle. Even though the President is pushing the Senate to move forward this year, there are some poison pills in the House version of health care reform that will slow it process through the Senate; namely abortion. I look forward to getting caught up to hear more spin from all sides of the health care debate; especially the benefit that AARP will receive even though they saw a membership drive to leave AARP take place on Friday.

As an aside, I am in process of getting caught up with all the new information on the shooting at Fort Hood.

15 comments:

  1. My question after skimming the fine points of the bill is: Why couldn't the insurance companies adopt many of these plans prior to this issue thus saving the god-fearing American public from government run healthcare?

    To me, the issue is lost in the politics while insurers stand idle smirking at the mess they've made.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now you are catching on to the Ponzi scheme. The Government created the problem though Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and anti-trust exemption. With all these built in problems, Government - championed by the progressive and far left - the plan is to enslave America to high taxes and unemployment north of 10%.

    As I stated before, the 8 points I pointed out last week all could be instituted without raising $1 or taxing anyone. But that won't secure your vote and keep the political class in power. The new plantation is the United States and every elected official is the Master.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I see things the other way.
    We have big corporations and rich people in this country (2% of the population, maybe less) that has a complete toe hold on the rest of the 98%. These entities refuse to allow any of their bottom lines nor the relations with their investors pick up the slack for anyone. Poor people be damned.
    Healthcare is particularly troubling because of the wonderful 85% of the US population who have healthcare, how many of those know how much their healthcare actually costs? Very few, I'm sure. To them it's virtually free.

    The government is no master...especially in this country. We toe the line with the corporations. And talk about influence! What could possibly happen if the money used to torpedo the healthcare bill could possibly be used to actually absorb some of the rising costs of healthcare.
    Corporations, along with their puppets: conservatives, John Birchers, libertarians are fully invested in this greed shouting to the masses about the evils of government. Sorry, I don't buy it.
    Do you really want less government?
    Stop the corporations from squeezing the middle class and provide more for the poor.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, I want less Government because I want to decide for myself what I do with my money. At the rate we are going right now, we will be looking to give over 50% of our income to the government. If you live in New York, you already see nearly 60% of your income going to federal, state and local government in term of taxes - thats if you are making over $125,000.

    Then again who creates jobs in America? Sustainable jobs with the ability to pursue the dream of moving up in society and leaving a better life for your children is done through the private sector. Government is the issue. Too much government in our lives..if we Americans held our politicians to the powers allowed them, notice I didn't say given them, by the Constitution our society wouldn't have to worry about abortion, same-sex marriage, etc..because people would be free to participate in them if they want to or not.

    The corporate boogey man you speak of. What will you say when the Government owns them all instead of private citizens? The curret corporate culture is not squeezing the middle class, it is the only form of society that will allow the middle class to move up the class ladder. All other forms eliminate the middle class and enslave their people to government dependance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Viper...your argument is sound but purely symbolic. You can come at me all you want with anti-government rhetoric but it still does nothing about the greed and corruption in corporate America. They are the ones who are supposed to be offering affordable healthcare-how long has it been?
    You want to hold elected leaders at a particular power accountable? I'm in the same boat.
    But what about corporate leaders? Is that not the same? Let me ask you about regulation. That's not a fiscal conservative strong point, but you are willing to throw more government control in the mix so that more people get covered and the healthcare is cheaper? Wouldn't that be growing government?
    I believe that you are missing my point, so let me reiterate:
    Why can't corporate America do a better job in providing people with the affordable options that they need?
    The answer pure and simple is that it is not superiorly profitable, so the government comes in to pick up the slack

    ReplyDelete
  6. Government made the issues we see in the financial markets through the use of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The other big piece, that continues to go unchecked, is the Fed Chair. The reduction of interest rates by Greenspan laid the ground work to allow Congress to abuse Freddie and Fannie thus creating the deritive market and allowing all of us American's to purchase things we have no means of paying back.

    As for health care, the number one enemy we consumers have is the anti-trust exemption the industry has. Take away the anti-trust exemption and open up competition interstate and you who see free market forces establish lower premiums.

    Now the cost of in the rise of health care is also at the footstep of Government. The 14% kickback under Medicare Advantage and low rates for Medicare and Medicaid forces hospitals and clinics - even non-profit - to pass along the losses experienced by serving those patients onto the rest of us.

    I agree the system needs reform but it is not through the assitance the government wants to give us. It can be done without raising taxes on anyone. I am not sure of your age but ask yourself who gains by cutting Medicare Advantage 14% kickback? AARP!!!!! No wonder they support the House bill.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am not old enough to use Medicare advantage, thats for sure.
    Actually, one of the real reasons you see such a horrible problem with the financial markets was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 1999. If that is what you are referring to Congress doing, then I am in complete agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am not that aware of the repeal, I have heard it thrown around but have not done any research on it. Did it open the door to the abuse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae thus creating the deritive market?

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry I got back to you so late.

    The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and/or an insurance company.
    So essentially, mortgages given from banks to consumers for inflated land prices (Las Vegas), could wrap those mortgages into derivatives bought and sold in the market. Using no regulation or oversight to do it. Many of these large banks set up smaller subsidiaries(sp?) to handle sub-prime mortgages, which were usually handled by local banks.
    Fannie and Freddie (who are stockholder owned corporations with no government backing) originally did not allow backing of mortgages from subprime lenders, but was pressured to do so creating more competition with the large banks.
    So, what would have happened if that repeal never occurred? Fannie and Freddie would have backed loans as they always did. Investment firms would be making money in stocks, bonds, and commodities like they always did. Real estate would not have been inflated to unreal prices, and a few less people would have qualified for a mortgage.

    The government created this mess on the whole, yes. But the corporations saw the untold riches that this repeal would give them and forced it to happen. I am not a socialist by any means, but, if capitalism is reduced to this again I'll take socialism any day.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Correct me if I am wrong. While the Glass-Steagall Act if not touched the real estate bubble would have been none existant. I understand your point of unchecked capitalism which is why I am okay with some regulation as long as that regulation is not tinkered with.

    The trouble is that Government officials believed that everyone has the "right" to own a home. That thought, socialist view, set the ball rolling to what we see now. Government can guide action but to make wholesale changes that alter the game is not what Government should be; at least not in a free society.

    Our freedoms are being striped away under the guise of the Commerce Clause if the House bill gets approved by the Senate. By making health care mandatory is an affront to our freedoms and strips our right to choose. I will be looking at the House bill and pulling out the more controversial sections and attempt to discuss them more in depth...

    Thank you for helping with the Glass-Steagall Act.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nobody has the "right" to own a home. If that were true could you imagine what real estate values might be?
    The Glass-Steagall Act made it possible to create the real estate bubble. What happens when TRILLIONS of dollars of debt traded on wall street suddenly becomes worthless?

    Banks need bailouts, thats what.

    Making healthcare mandatory is really what the industry wants in the first place. I am not a big fan of it either, but you gotta admit, it gives everyone health insurance (whether they like it or not!)

    I want you to see the historical aspect of your arguments. Unregulated capitalism screws people over, crippling recessions occur, government regulates and bails out, laws get repealed, repeat. It has happened 4-5 times since our founding.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The re-occuring theme that you ellude to makes one wonder why the Government does not allow the free market forces to work while keeping some oversight to ensure competition, honesty, and ethical behavoir. The trouble is that Government officials feel the need to tinker in order to get re-elected. It is their tinkering that sees the repeat of trouble in our free market economy.

    I agree that no one has a "right" to own a home but those Congress members that oversaw Freddie and Fannie disagree. It is this thought that lead us to the bubble and situation we find our economy in.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I’d argue that government officials are just as happy to leave a bill once it passes.

    It’s all about what can you do for me now. Tinkering is left to those who actually execute the legislation. How does tinkering lead to trouble? If an official tinkers to get reelected, wouldn’t the purpose be to make the majority of people happy so they can be reelected. Thus, it being viewed as a beneficial change to the majority.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree that legislators cloak their tinkering under the banner as the best for all. They are only looking out for their own skin; which is human nature.

    The problem though is that their tinkering is why free market forces are reigned in and cannot work to their full capacity.

    ReplyDelete