Time to get informed on health-care reform - Sentinel & Enterprise

I'm with you phil on the confusion part.
But the one thing i am not cofused about is the "behind closed doors" sessions" taking place now.
The American people deserve to know what this administration is planning before forcing a bill of goods that only serves to put an already undue burden on people that can not afford to pay for insurance now and force ridicoulous fines on those that refuse to comply.
I believe this is much more about control than it is healthcare.
Yes, we do need an overhaul of the healthcare system, but not at the expense crating another huge beauracracy on an already strained economy.
This is totaly unacceptable, and will only serve to line the pockets of Obama's cronies, or czars, and it is not the way to go.

What the hell ever happened to the LAND of the FREE? These misguided control freaks are going to PENALIZE people for not being insured? What the heck ever happened to a person's right to personal freedom? How can these despots force someone to buy something they either don't want or more importantly, can't afford, and then fine or jail them if they don't? What is next, "re-education camps"? Sounds like some of the old Ho Chi Min methods are coming back.

cuz it aint got squat to do with healthcare stupid, it how the one world gov works to get complete and total control over the population. look around the world..

Real Reality wrote:

I'm with you phil on the confusion part.
But the one thing i am not cofused about is the "behind closed doors" sessions" taking place now.
The American people deserve to know what this administration is planning before forcing a bill of goods that only serves to put an already undue burden on people that can not afford to pay for insurance now and force ridicoulous fines on those that refuse to comply.
I believe this is much more about control than it is healthcare.
Yes, we do need an overhaul of the healthcare system, but not at the expense crating another huge beauracracy on an already strained economy.
This is totaly unacceptable, and will only serve to line the pockets of Obama's cronies, or czars, and it is not the way to go.

What realy impressed me was when I heard the changed the locks on the chamber doors to keep the Republicans out, Is this getting crazy or what? Socialized medecine does not work it hasn't in the many countries that have it it won't work here. How long before the workers especialy those that have worked hard and make above minimum wage say if it pays to be lazy why should I work to support the lazy people. It would be better to become one of the lazy and get a free ride. Sooner or later there will be no one working at least not above minimum wage. Who will pay for all the freebies then???

It's going to cost the middle class alot more for health care, especially in Massachusetts.

Even Congress does not want the health plan for themselves, they want to keep what they have because they know the care people receive is substandard to what we give them

All you guys better have some Valium in the house -- healthcare reform is coming to your neighborhood soon. As far as the " behind closed doors " is concerned, you obviously don't know how legislation is formulated. There has been more open debate about this issue than any other that I can remember. And the debate has gone on for 40 years !!!

Now the proposed legislation will come to the floors of the House and Senate and be debated further. Amendment after amendment will be offered with various challenges and votes. Eventually, the final votes will be taken. There will be winners and losers. I'm betting on the pro healthcare reform side to win. That's what elections are all about. Get that Valium !

for all those who whine about the the high profits made by health insurance companies (when it is actually only a median of 3%--far less than Google's profitl), look at how mismanaged government run healthcare ALREADY is:

Annual Medicare Fraud:$60 Billion;

Annual Profits of Top 10 Insurance Companies:
$8 billion

"As 60 Minutes reported last week, Medicare fraud is rampant and has now replaced the cocaine (ahem) business as the major criminal activity in South Florida. Both 60 Minutes and the Washington Post report that Medicare fraud now costs American taxpayers roughly $60 billion a year. That may sound like a lot of money, but surely it pales next to the extraordinary profits of private insurance companies, right?

Well, let's see.... Last year, the profits of the ten largest insurance companies in America were just over $8 billion -- combined. No single insurance company made even five percent of what Medicare reportedly loses in fraud.

While we're making comparisons, in its real first ten years (2014-23), the Senate Finance Committee bill would cost $1.7 trillion. At the rate of last year's profits, the combined ten-year profits of America's ten largest insurance companies would be $83 billion -- five percent of the costs of the Senate Finance Committee bill. Eighty-three billion dollars may not buy you much in comparison with BaucusCare, but -- on the bright side -- that ten-year tally is somewhat more than what Medicare loses each year in fraud.

So, the next time someone alleges that government-run health care is cheaper because of "lower administrative costs" -- a truly preposterous claim on its surface -- these numbers would be good ones to have at the ready:$60 billion in annual Medicare fraud,$8 billion in combined annual profits for America's ten largest insurance companies.

Posted by Jeffrey H. Anderson at 05:15 P
http://ado.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/01/fraud ,...

RenoLady wrote:

All you guys better have some Valium in the house -- healthcare reform is coming to your neighborhood soon. As far as the " behind closed doors " is concerned, you obviously don't know how legislation is formulated. There has been more open debate about this issue than any other that I can remember. And the debate has gone on for 40 years !!!
Now the proposed legislation will come to the floors of the House and Senate and be debated further. Amendment after amendment will be offered with various challenges and votes. Eventually, the final votes will be taken. There will be winners and losers. I'm betting on the pro healthcare reform side to win. That's what elections are all about. Get that Valium !

Losers: Small and big businesses, the middle class, seniors, health insurance companies, hospitals and doctors (who will receive greater amounts of underpayments). My company is among the losers because they will pay an additional 40% tax on my existing benefits, as is the person they decide NOT to hire this year because of the increased tax. Other losers include the employers whose companies decide it is cheaper to dump them into the public option than provide private insurance.

Winners: Those who decide to pay the $750 annual fine instead of getting private insurance, wait until they get sick and then get health insurance. Members of Congress who for the rest of their lives will have family coverage--the "Cadillac" kind--free of charge.

I have read the bill (and each revision of it) and agree that there is much confusion looming - from the public, from the politicians, and from special interest groups on both sides of the debate.
I am hopeful that once these sessions are over, that there will be a clear and concise legislation (as much as can be expected out of legislation anyway) on the table that can be accurately and factually debated by all parties. THAT will be in the best interest of everyone.

Jane says wrote:

<quoted text>
My company is among the losers because they will pay an additional 40% tax on my existing benefits, as is the person they decide NOT to hire this year because of the increased tax. Other losers include the employers whose companies decide it is cheaper to dump them into the public option than provide private insurance.

What is this additional 40% tax of which you speak? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Can you please provide a source on this?
As far as employers who "dump" their employees into the public option, there are likely going to be disincentives for doing that (at least there are in the "current" version of the bill). Of course, small companies that are not covered under legislation like FMLA, ADA, etc. probably will do that without penalty, but, most of those companies already don't offer employer subsidized insurance benefits to their employees anyway, so, no big loss there.

and the bill is more harmful than helpful to small business owners and employees:

"Small businesses would be be big losers under the bills Congress is debating

The 1,990-page bill the House leadership unveiled Thursday would impose a dizzying barrage of new regulations on employers, and force them to either provide government-specified health insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 % of their payroll.

Coverage must meet the government's definition of "acceptable." i.e. the bill requires employers to pay at least 72.5 % of premiums for an individual & 65 % for families. Data from a 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation survey suggest that at least 30 % of firms with fewer than 200 employees that now offer insurance would fail the test for family coverage, and about 20 % would fail for individual coverage.

In other words, small businesses would have to pay more for health insurance than they do now -- as well as comply with hefty new record-keeping requirements and audits by federal agents.

The CBO estimates that businesses will be hit with tax penalties totaling $135B over 6 yrs for noncompliance with the mandate. These would surely fall disproportionately on small businesses.

President Obama tried to court small business owners with a White House event timed to coincide with the release of the bill by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But few were swayed by the rhetoric.because the bill's huge cost "will ultimately come out of small business owners' pockets and prohibit them from growing, investing in their business and hiring new employees."

WellPoint, a national health-insurance company, mined its own actuarial data to model ObamaCare in the 14 states where it runs Blue Cross plans. In all 14, it found that the House bill would drive up premiums for small businesses and individuals. Young & healthy consumers would see the largest hikes, with premiums more than tripling in some states.

The bill offers a few subsidies to help small businesses pay for insurance. But the credit would cover only 1/2 the cost & only if businesses agree to comply with a list of government demands on coverage requirements. And the subsidy is gradually reduced for businesses that employ more than 25 employees or pay average wages above $20,000 a year. And it only lasts 2 yrs, after that, the business owner is on the hook for the full cost of the expensive coverage.

The pain continues: The bill would also subject businesses and employees to a bigger, hidden tax -- a shifting of costs from public to private payers. The legislation would expand Medicaid to cover another 15 million people. But Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals are well below market rates -- and often below their costs of providing care.

A study by the independent actuarial firm Milliman Inc. concluded that families with employer-based health insurance ALREADY PAY $1,788 a year in HIDDEN TAXES to compensate for underpayments by government programs. That figure will grow under the House bill.

For a final blow, the bill imposes surcharges on hi-income individuals that will certainly hit many small business owners -- who pay business taxes through their personal-income tax forms.

There's little hope small businesses would fare better in the Senate bill: The mandates, taxes, penalties and "gotcha" subsidies all are expected to be part of that by Harry Reid.

This isn't the kind of change that small businesses or our economy need."

Grace-Marie Turner is president of the Galen Institute, a nonprofit research organization focusing on health policy.

"http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_...

I hope everyone reading everyone's comments thinks about these proposed changes deeply. I went to Congressman Olver's site.

His arguments are weak.

He uses a study where industrialized countries are compared on preventative deaths and the US ranks last as a reason to change our entire system. Well that study has had its share of critics. First other countries don't report ALL related deaths as we do and our population is much greater than many of the other European countries. I argue we still have the best health care in the world.

He wants to address the issue of pre-existing conditions. I agree here that we have to come to an equitable agreement so everyone has access.

Elimnate copays and deductibles. Excuse me? We can't have everything we want in healthcare. There simply is just not enough money in the pool. I maintain we can all pay for our physicals eliminating the insurance paperwork! I bet your Dr. would be thrilled and would give you a break on the cost. Before the mandates in this state, I personally know an individual who successfully negotiated the price of some surgery at a reduced rate by paying cash. This state is mandating the TYPE of coverage that is credible. That drives the price of coverage up. Having a policy on catastophic coverage should suffice.

Lastly Olver argues the changes will increase the number of Primary Care providers and pay them better. YOU DON'T PAY THEM NOW!! Why should anyone believe you?

Many people previous to me have commented about the fraud in the government run programs. Congressman Olver, please address this. You do not need legislation to address this issue. You need to fire and/or prosecute the government employees that are allowing this to happen.

Let's stop politicizing this and use some common sense!!

Truly remarkable times we live in where they can ram a healthcare bill through knowing the people are against it but confident that they know better and the masses just dont "get it". At the same time Cap and Trade is getting steamrolled with 0 (zero) Republican support or even presence on the floor for a vote.
Remarkable, truly remarkable.

I'm for Obama's Health plan 110 percent go Barack you rock my world

Stamos wrote:

Truly remarkable times we live in where they can ram a healthcare bill through knowing the people are against it but confident that they know better and the masses just dont "get it". At the same time Cap and Trade is getting steamrolled with 0 (zero) Republican support or even presence on the floor for a vote.
Remarkable, truly remarkable.

Stamos, the problem is that there is a huge portion of the opposition that is grossly misinformed on this issue. The "death panels" argument, the Canada-style reform argument, the rationing argument, the access to bank accounts argument, etc etc against healthcare reform are still being used and they are just plain wrong.

Yes, there are absolutely valid reasons why some may be opposed to the reform as it stands (personally, I support the reform bill in essence, although it needs to be cleaned up a bit). Until a VALID majority opposition based on data, facts, and reasoning - not pure emotion evolves on this issue, it will absolutely pass.

Hypothetical for comparitive purposes: Let's say you wanted to build a 4 foot picket fence in your yard, and it went along your neighbor's property line to keep turkeys from eating your plants. Because your neighbor has...I don't know.... costly, rare (but not endangered) plants that require a lot of sunlight near where you plan to put your fence up, you inform him of your plans so you can figure out a way to minimize any negative impact. Instead of telling you that he does not want to incur the expense and labor of moving these rare and expensive plants to another part of his yard, he starts screaming at you, saying he didn't want your 12 foot concrete wall near his house. In this situation, you would ignore him and build it anyway, because you know that (1) his facts are just wrong (2) you need to keep the turkeys out of your plants and this, in your opinion, is the best way to accomplish that and (3) you have the ability to do it and (4) he has not offered up any equitable resolution to the problem.

The healthcare issue is obviously on a much greater scale, and my hypothetical is a bit ridiculous but I hope this illustrates my point.

The naysayers in these comments reflect the misinformed, uninformed opinions of either blind partisans or disingenuous cut-and-pasters speaking on behalf of the big health profiteers.

Bottom line: the single most costly approach, for everyone but the big health behemoths, is to do nothing.