|
Post by agito on Dec 15, 2009 13:32:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Dec 15, 2009 15:12:18 GMT -6
My understanding in the Senate plan one must prove insurance to gain employment. If an employee lacks insurance, employer would pay a penalty. The end result will be a larger and larger pool of "unofficial" workers.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 15, 2009 16:17:43 GMT -6
Good topic, agito. I absolutely HATE the individual mandate. And that's really the whole bill if there isn't a public option. How does the bill "cover everybody" Answer: By mandating that they buy insurance. People could do that now without this bill. How does this "help" anything? It only helps already-profitable insurance companies to extract even more wealth from struggling non-affluent Americans. Few, if any of the new rules will be enforced--assuming they even can be enforced. This bill should be defeated, and Congress should start over from scratch. As I maintained over a year ago, this needs to start with a Medicare-type plan that ALL Americans can buy into, regardless of their current coverage. And if it's 100% paid for by enrollees, it'll cost a relatively small amount to get it started. (The original House bill called for a $2 billion start-up cost). The current bill is nothing buy a scam by health insurers and their co-conspirators in Congress and the White House. If this plan has neither a public option nor a Medicare buy-in, all of those voting for it should be prosecuted for fraudulent collusion with health insurers, and for non-representation of the electorate.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 15, 2009 18:26:34 GMT -6
I really don't believe that to be true, because most americans get their insurance through their current workplace right now. any links proletariat? UnLC wrote: in the interests of fair argument, the bill does approrpriate more money to subsidize those that can't afford it, BUT markos moulitsas himself points out the flaw in that:
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Dec 15, 2009 20:43:28 GMT -6
agito,
It was right out of the Baucus plan. When they got rid of the employer mandate and replaced it with a consumer one this was a major aspect.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 16, 2009 16:19:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 16, 2009 17:48:09 GMT -6
Excellent read, and right on target. Corporations and banks are already controlling our government. The currently proposed health insurer welfare bill will just extend that control even further, and further rob from the poor to give to the rich. Apparently Obama has also decided to come to the rescue of his new rich friends in the pharmaceutical industry, and has thwarted the drug re-importation bill. Heaven forbid if Big Pharma might not be able maintain its double-digit profit margins in the middle of a deep recession.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Dec 16, 2009 18:28:45 GMT -6
The importation thingy is not even the big deal. What he has done - pharma deal - is create a long moratorium with generics. When this gets passed you'll find fewer and fewer generics on the market.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 17, 2009 12:04:06 GMT -6
found this early christmas present of an explanation on the front page of DKOS this morning: www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/17/815767/-Debate-the-Mandate,-But-Dont-Call-it-Unconstitutional I really don't like the authors association of anyone fighting the mandate with being a teabagger, but he has a concise explanation of how it's going to work (and sadly, how it will probably be ruled constitutional by the SC) "Congress will impose a tax on everyone vis a vis health insurance. You fill out your tax form. If you have employer provided health insurance, or purchased health insurance through the exchange, you are exempt from the tax. If not...you're not." PS Proletariat, the only thing i've found so far about work-related health insurance is that all large companies (i'm guessing that's more than 500) will be fined (or "taxed") if they don't have insurance.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Dec 18, 2009 6:12:06 GMT -6
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-12-healthcare_N.htmIn particular, -Businesses with 25 or more employees would be required to offer insurance or pay a fine of $750 a year for each employee not covered. Unlike to the 50 or more employees - 25 or more - simply requires insurance for those employees "not covered". Again, this could very easily create a perverse incentive in which coverage is required for employment. This is actually going on currently. During Obama's sell many small businesses acknowledged they only hire "women" because they had insurance through husband.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Dec 18, 2009 10:00:03 GMT -6
Or, they will do like MaoMart and show their employees how to apply for Medicaid.
|
|
|
Post by nomad943 on Dec 19, 2009 10:03:25 GMT -6
Just a hunch but I will guess there is no winnable constitutional case or else why hasnt anyone here In Massachusetts filed one yet? We have had the mandate thing for 3 years now, with ever telescoping fines for non compliance. The result has been a spike in non filers of tax returns.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 19, 2009 14:05:56 GMT -6
Just a hunch but I will guess there is no winnable constitutional case or else why hasnt anyone here In Massachusetts filed one yet? We have had the mandate thing for 3 years now, with ever telescoping fines for non compliance. The result has been a spike in non filers of tax returns. That's an interesting observation. I suspect individual states are given more latitude with potentially un-Constitutional laws, compared to the Federal government. An example would be the variable state and local gun laws. For example, when I lived in Baltimore it was illegal to even have a handgun within city limits (unless you were a cop or had a permit). A similar Federal statute would be struck down immediately. Another example are state auto insurance laws. Prior to the 1980's, auto liability insurance was not mandatory. Sometime afterward, however, a law that mandated liability insurance was passed. Again, a Federal statute of that type would be struck down immediately as un-Constitutional. I certainly hope someone does press the Constitutional issue. Mandating the individual purchase of health insurance greatly increases the demand and upward price pressure. And that's guaranteed to raise the price of health insurance premiums. The individual mandate is pure fascism, and about as re-gressive as you can get. Mandating that everyone buy insurance, and then claiming that you've "covered everyone" as a result, is disingenuous to the max. Forcing people to give their money over to the exorbitantly profitable health insurance cartel is wrong at every level.
|
|
|
Post by Cactus Jack on Dec 24, 2009 14:05:38 GMT -6
The U.S. Senate passed their version of healthcare reform Christmas Eve by a 60-39 vote. Ahead lies the restructuring when the Senate and House versions are consolidated into one plan, which when the two versions are mingled and merged, it will only require majority votes in both houses to send the Health Scare program to Prez Obama's desk for signature.
But already, court challenges are in the works to derail and even stop the proposed program from getting off the ground. One such judical proceeding, already brewing, coordinated attacks from several Republican attorneys general, initiated in South Carolina, now includes 10 states, including Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah and Washington state, along with the attorney general-elect in Virginia, are also involved in the discussions.
In addition, high-ranking Republicans in Georgia, New York and Tennessee — grabbing hold of a hot new political issue — have begun advocating that their states participate in a possible lawsuit.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is vowing to fight what he called an "outrageous" decision to give Nebraska multimillion-dollar tax breaks as part of a deal to get enough votes for the health care overhaul working its way through Congress. Abbott said the provision, which helped win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's vote on the massive health care bill, was unfair and possibly unconstitutional. It's part of a Senate bill that was approved Thursday morning.
"From a fundamental fairness perspective this is both wrong and outrageous," Abbott told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "Usually when that is the case you can either find law that will support your position or a court who will agree with you."
Critics of the measure are calling it the "Nebraska Compromise" and the "Cornhusker Kickback," a reference to the state's nickname. Nelson, Nebraska's lone Democrat in Congress, held out as fellow Democrats worked to get 60 votes to cut off a GOP filibuster and the bill was amended to shield Nebraska from the cost tied to expanding Medicaid programs. The Nebraska provision has been estimated to cost between $45 million and $100 million in published reports.
Edited exerpts taken from: By Jay Root, Associated Press Writer – Thu Dec 24, 9:28 am ET
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 25, 2009 12:58:06 GMT -6
Hey proletariat:
any links or a description of that moratorium? I had an idea in the back of my head that instead of limiting intellectual property rights on medicines to 7 years, they should kick it back to 25 years (or longer) and then simply tax any generic provider at ever decreasing rates. This would change the culture of marketing that currently exists in the pharm market.
Ps- thanks for the link on the business one
|
|
|
Post by Cactus Jack on Dec 26, 2009 12:06:12 GMT -6
If foreign countries took their fair share of the costs in R & D of pharmaceuticals developed in the USA, it would go a long way at reducing the costs Americans pay here. As long as Americans continue to subsidize those R & D costs for every other place on earth, our drug prices will be outrageously high.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 26, 2009 19:25:34 GMT -6
"If foreign countries took their fair share of the costs in R & D of pharmaceuticals developed in the USA"
the problem is that's the responsibility of the pharm companies themselves. For whatever reason they see american's as the fat cats worth poaching, it's easier for them to buy off american politicians than it is to charge a fair price overseas.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 29, 2009 18:01:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 4, 2010 22:57:26 GMT -6
came across another article (opinion) in teh WSJ: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read unfortunately the opinion is crap: Hatch, blackwell, and klukowski should read the bill, because a tax is exactly how the mandate is affected. You don't have to buy insurance, you can elect to pay a surtax instead. The only argument that i can see that might have a chance is that this is the first tax i know of where you are taxed for not doing something. All (or most) other taxes are applied after you engage in behavior, whether it's buying cigarrettes or earning income. Taxed for simply existing definitely seems wrong in my eyes, but if it's going to be argued in front of the supreme court, there is going to have to be a better argument than what these three have presented here.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 5, 2010 15:23:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 5, 2010 17:01:23 GMT -6
Here's another great passage from Moulitsas' article, which I completely agree with: [/i]"[/ul] I've been saying this myself since I read the 1st version of the bill months ago. If the insurance company decides to deny care due to a pre-existing condition, the only option a patient has is to find a lawyer and try to sue them to make them pay. And since health insurance companies have more salaried lawyers working for them than doctors, they have no problem with the possibility of being sued. The ban on pre-existing condition exclusion is nearly worthless. As it stands now, anyone with a pre-existing condition goes into a high-risk pool where insurers can charge 4x as much as they can for regular enrollees.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 5, 2010 17:50:35 GMT -6
yeah- I usually find myself at odds with markos over little things, but his statements there I was in 100% agreement with.
btw- does anyone know of any current tax for not doing something?
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jan 6, 2010 21:49:41 GMT -6
"Provisions prohibiting rescissions are fine and dandy, and fairly non-controversial, but they are toothless. The legislation allows rescissions based on "fraud" and "willful misrepresentation". I'm still not sure what that means, but if the insurance company doesn't want to pay for your expensive care, seems they can assert those clauses and refuse to pay. Then what? You have to fight for coverage, get lawyers, hit the courts, hope you survive long enough to resolve the issue. Looks a lot like the status quo, doesn't it? Indeed, insurance companies already cite fraud or misrepresentation as the excuses for rescissions."
Truly horrible. Imagine if you're a employed kidney transplant patient who needs those very expensive anti-rejection drugs and you get laid off. You know for a fact that no HMO wants you and will be impossible for you to buy your own. And COBRA will cost more than you get in unemployment because of your condition. I know COBRA for me back in the late 80's was $480 a month and didn't pay shit for tests like echo cardiogram's etc.
The same thing will happen to folks with hereditary diseases or pre-existing conditions.
G-d Obama and the Democrats are evil. I mean no one and I mean no who has a conscience could possible support such a nightmarish piece of legislation.
I hope people like Dodd, Reid, Pelosi and every other Democrat out there gets brain and rectal cancer.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Feb 23, 2010 22:47:54 GMT -6
well it looks like someone on the left-hand side of things finally figured out what a mandate is, and the resulting diary made Dkos's frontpage. The comments are hilarious: www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/23/840057/-FORK-IT!-Fine-me,-tax-me,-whatever,-but-I-aint-gonna-pay
|
|