Obama's New HC Plan

[Ki]

Just found out today that the tax exemption for labor unions...yea, even after it expires in 2018 for their medical plans, the tax exemption continues on their dental and vision plans.

[Zarathustra]

Sixty-one percent (61%) of U.S. voters say Congress should drop health care reform and focus on more immediate ways to improve the economy and create jobs.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30% of voters nationwide disagree and think Congress should press ahead with health care.

link

[Avatar]

Not a surprise. I think there's a general perception that right now, there are bigger problems that need handling. Obama jumped the gun on this, and it may cost him his chance to implement it at all.

--A

[Vraith]

Maybe they'll do it better with a little more time to think about it. I want it reformed, seriously..but the plan was not a good one.

OTOH, I wonder how many of that 61% already have health insurance they can live with [even if they don't really like it]?

[Avatar]

Good point.

--A

[Cail]

OTOH, I wonder how many of that 61% already have health insurance they can live with [even if they don't really like it]?

Candidate Obama told the people with health insurance that they'd be allowed to keep it. Then again, he also told us that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Seems to me that people realized that they couldn't trust the guy not to screw with their livelihood.

[Cail]

Oh this is just precious....

And people will never know what's in that bill until we pass it, the president signs it, and they have a whole range of new protections they never had before.

[Avatar]

Transparency, yeah!

--A

[Cybrweez]

Yea, what did he mean by that statement? I read that response, and that seemed weird.

And this was a gem:

...this thing's been defined by insurance company -- insurance industry propaganda, the propaganda of the opponents, and an admittedly messy process leading up to it.

What is this thing he's talking about? The bill? Or the opposition to it? If its the former, who's fault is that? If its the latter, I can see the great strategy (or blindness) - people are against it not b/c the bill is bad, but b/c they've been lied to by some interest group (insurance in this case).

[sindatur]

Yea, what did he mean by that statement? I read that response, and that seemed weird.

And this was a gem:

...this thing's been defined by insurance company -- insurance industry propaganda, the propaganda of the opponents, and an admittedly messy process leading up to it.

What is this thing he's talking about? The bill? Or the opposition to it? If its the former, who's fault is that? If its the latter, I can see the great strategy (or blindness) - people are against it not b/c the bill is bad, but b/c they've been lied to by some interest group (insurance in this case).

IT seems to be both. Pharma and the Insurance companies seem to be playing both sides of the coin here (as are the Administration). Opposition is being aided by Insurance and Pharma money, while Insurance and Pharma are going to benefit greatly if it passes.

[Zarathustra]

What is the evidence that opposition is being funded by Pharma and Insurance money?

[sindatur]

What is the evidence that opposition is being funded by Pharma and Insurance money?

I don't have evidence, per say, but, apparently some of the "Anti-Health Care Reform" commercials are funded by Insurance and/or Pharma. II wouldn't go so far as to blanketly say "The opposition is funded by", but, it appears that it is partially funded by. Obviously there is opposition coming from other directions, such as Republicans, Independents, etc

[Ur Dead]

Health care reform is still a good idea.

But not what is now going thru Congress..

It's like:

Theres water in the farmhouse cellar!

To fix the problem, one part of Congress want to burn down the crops in the fields and the other half wants to slaughter the livestock.


First of all, find out where the water came from!

[sindatur]

Health care reform is still a good idea.

But not what is now going thru Congress..

It's like:

Theres water in the farmhouse cellar!

To fix the problem, one part of Congress want to burn down the crops in the fields and the other half wants to slaughter the livestock.


First of all, find out where the water came from!

YEs, I like

"prior Conditions" reform,

I think Insurance Claim forms should be standardized (Many Medical personnel I've seen weighing in on the debate have pointed at the expense and bereaucracy involved in having 10,000 different claim forms).

I think we need some work on drug pricing and competition (Other countries can buy our drugs for cheaper, and can buy their own cheaper than ours, but, we can't buy their cheaper ones)

I think we do need to help get more people covered, but, not with a 1000 page mountain of pork and confusion and why should it take 6 years to get only half of them covered, yet, we pay for it immediately

Tort reform

[Avatar]

Hear hear.

--A

[Ki]

I was just reading that 34 states have filed amendments to their state constitutions or statutes to reject health insurance mandates. But Obama and Congress are going to do this for the American people (whether they want it or not).

www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/01/sta ... latestnews

[Cail]

Another report from the land of mandated health insurance....

Elizabeth Debski spent eight years as Everett’s city planner, before losing her job in 2006 when a newly elected mayor installed his own team.

But Debski did not leave City Hall empty-handed. In addition to her pension, Debski, at 42, walked away with city-subsidized health care insurance for life. If she lives into her 80s, as actuarial charts predict, taxpayers could pay more than $1 million in all for her family’s health care benefits.

That’s not to say Debski manipulated the system. She simply took what she was owed under a municipal health care system whose generous benefits and colossal inefficiencies are crippling cities and towns across Massachusetts.

A six-month review by the Globe found that municipal health plans, which cover employees, retirees, and elected officials, provide benefit levels largely unheard of in the private sector. Copays are much lower. Some communities do not force retirees onto Medicare at age 65. Many citizens on elected boards - some after serving as few as six years - receive coverage for life, too.

As medical costs across the board rose over the past decade, municipal health care expenses exploded, draining local budgets and forcing major cuts in services, higher property tax bills, and billions in new debt.

“It has got to be dealt with,’’ said Richard Fortucci , the chief financial officer in Lynn. “Or we will all go bankrupt.’’

The cost of municipal health care more than doubled from fiscal 2001 to 2008, adding more than $1 billion in all to city and town budgets, according to state Department of Revenue data. A Globe survey of 25 communities found that they now devote, on average, 14 percent of their budgets to health care, up from 8 percent a decade ago. Somerville, for one, spends $20 million more annually than it did 10 years ago, now devoting almost 20 percent of its budget to health care.

So far, with powerful labor unions resistant to giving away hard-won benefits and a lack of political will in the state Legislature to force changes, efforts to overhaul the system have fallen short.

To be sure, many municipal employees, elected officials, and retirees are paying a greater percentage of their health premiums than ever. Still, almost all of the increase in municipal health care costs in the past 10 years has been shouldered by taxpayers, who are subsidizing plans that are often superior to their own.

There's much more to the article, including a nice chart that graphically shows the explosion in costs. The Massachusetts plan is a budgetary disaster, and should be a very clear warning as to why the rest of the country shouldn't be emulating it.

[Avatar]

Hahaha, the only way this is ever going happen...no...scratch that...this is almost certainly never going to happen.

If anything ever does get through, it'll be so watered down as to be ineffective, if you believe (as I do) that the goal should be ensuring everybody in the country can get medical care.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

Well, it looks like Pres. Obama has decided to go with the "Damn the torpedoes" option and to just ram the damn thing down if at all possible.

Sure hope the plan finds one of those torpedoes (mines in modern parlance) and sinks like a rock.

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, "reconciliation." What's ironic is that when Dems were in the minority, Obama is on record saying that something this important should require more than a simple majority of 51 votes, that it should require consensus building and 60 votes. But now he's just fine with it. The man simply cannot be taken at his word.