Democrats stifle Republican health care plans

reply to post by Jenna

---

Great response. Great find.

The most avid sponges at the MSM well insist that since they 'did not hear it', it must not exist?

How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?

jw

lornakismet.wordpress.com...

• Recognizes that one of the largest obstacles for many small businesses when it comes to retaining current employees or creating new jobs is the cost of health insurance. The plan allows states, small businesses, associations, and other organizations to band together and offer health insurance at lower costs.

This is not a subsidy! It;'s a way for employers to 'self insure' their employees with a tax break and guidelines. Anything that takes the Tax payers money and reinvests it into the health care is a good thing when approached in this manner!

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone

---

Yea I agreed with that part of the bill being good.

reply to post by JBA2848

---

Wow. That's truly amazing.

First you cite a NEW TAX that hits the lowest income-level Americans (cigarette tax) that President Obmama promised not to increase taxes for!

Remember? 'I will not raise ANY taxes on people who make less than $250,000.' Talk about "bull crap." You know it when you see it, right?

A new tax to pay for NEW SPENDING. Not to make up for less revenue! You don't see that difference?



Known as an "unfunded MANDATE." Oops! You forgot that word, didn't you?

Had it right on the tip of your typing fingers. No you didn't. You really don't see the difference.



In what case? You mean SPENDING more than you take in? That's "deficit spending" which your president has taken as a license to throw billions, no, triliions to unions and constituencies to ensure his re-election.

Wrong, again.

You don't "give people money" by letting them keep what already belongs to them! No one is "giving" anything; they're letting you KEEP what you've already earned.

Why don't you pay a 100% tax on YOUR income? Are we "giving" you an "unfunded credit" by letting you keep some?

A tax credit is not "unfunded." It DOESN'T have to be countered by more taxes; it COULD be countered by LESS SPENDING! Didn't think of that, did you?

It is a reduction of income, just as loss of working taxpayers reduces income. Or fewer sales reduce sales tax. Or lower values reduce property tax. You end up with a deficit unless you CUT SPENDING!

Again, President Obama has endorsed tax credits for certain constituencies that he and your liberal brethren favor!



Or, maybe you could "have to have something" like less spending?



You have no idea what you are talking about. The "soda tax" is not to pay for "tax credits." If people would read the stories in the paper to you, you'd know that taxes do 2 things: raise revenue and kill the thing taxed.

The idea for the "soda tax" is to reduce consumption, lower the obesity rate, improve health, and raise revenue. (And, who do you think drinks the most soda? People who make less than $250,000! So much for "no higher taxes." Again.)



Oh really? What section of HR 3200 says that? Or is there some other "bill" you're spouting about?

Show me Obmama's bill. Cut and paste; you know how. I'll make a deal with you: You find the "trigger" in 3200, I'll leave ATS. You don't find it, YOU leave. (hint: I've read 3200. It doesn't exist. (Thanks to Jenna and mikerussellus for posting the entire bill for people who can read.))

And, that's not what he said. He says it is "deficit neutral." Thus, no new "taxes proposed." It has to come from "savings."

Funny thing, though. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has "scored" this bill and says it will COST $1 trillion dollars in the first years, alone!

If there's savings to be had, why doesn't the president do it right now, when he needs all the extra money he can spend?

Oops. Looks like no "savings," either.



There's no such thing. That was "speech talk." Another Obama "promise" that isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.

Hell, even the NYT called him on this right after the speech! The New York Times?

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 12-9-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by ZindoDoone

---

Give the people more control of their health care dollars?

Isn't that the key to true "reform?"

s4u

jw

The Kaiser foundation has put together a nice web tool for doing
side-by-side comparisons of the many health reform bills at this
location: www.kff.org...

Since all of the bills will be thrown into the pot and a final bill
will emerge, is it even worthwhile to debate the individual
components of any of these healthcare reform bills at this time?

Will the public have the chance to review/debate/discuss the
FINAL bill for any length of time before the President signs it?
I'd hate for the final piece of legislation to be formed in secret
and immediately signed into law by the President.
-cwm

Probably not. There's a good track record of rushing bills through, I'm sure they'd hate to ruin it by doing something silly and being transparent.

Its reading pretty good IMO

www.govtrack.us...

I like what I have read so far, although it is pretty "FEDERAL" seems to be a whole bunch
of centralized operations, little strange for a conservative read when considering things said.

Anyhow I will trek on and give an Honest opinion in a bit

reply to post by carewemust

---

Remember Obama's "promise" not to sign ANY bill for 5 days and to post them online to give citizens time to respond?

Then he got the "Lily Ledbetter equal pay" bill and signed it without waitng.

Then he got the Stimulus bill and signed it without waiting.

Then he got three more bills right after those. And signed them without waiting. The "credit card" bill. The "S-CHIP" bill. The "land conservation bill."

(None of these bills were "emergency legislation." Some didn't even take effect right away!)

Get the picture?

So, what do you think?

jw


[edit on 12-9-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by mental modulator

---

There are a lot of "Federal" solutions, but the alternative is to stand by and do nothing, or wait for the states to act on their own.

You know what they say: "Be careful what you ask for ... ."

jw

Its all good, I am just sayin...




So this bill does not want to do away with state borders in regards to competition?

Or does this just apply to the exchange, do you know off the top of your head?

How is this different than Osatans Health insurance exchange???



JD



A negative for me - Same ol on the preexisting conditions in regards to access to the exchange.

Still trucking - lots of good stuff so far

But the there is a high risk pool

my eyes are bleeding... will get back to it

[edit on 13-9-2009 by mental modulator]

reply to post by mental modulator

---

As it stands now, insurance companies have to offer their plans through each state's approval/monitoring process. They are "standard" carriers.
Every state has its own quirks and tics about coverage.

Non-standard carriers must have an agency in the state through which they can offer the coverage, but with greater expense and more restrictions than those directly supervised by the state. These are the "minimum coverage" policies that pretty much say the same things, cost a lot, and offer little - the bare minimum.

(Many state "high risk" auto policies are "non-standard" and are overseen by "third party administrators.")

The "State Exchange" would be a sort of clearing house for health insurers. Instead of writing a policy specifically for each State ( as they are required to do now), the carrier would issue one that meets the new "Federal" standard.

Ever see the little disclaimer on insurance ads: "not applicable in MD, TX, IL, et c.?" That's because the policy is only approved for certain (high volume) markets.

Under the "State Exchange," so long as an insurer is licensed to do business in that State, they can participate in the program.

So, to the extent that States will give up control over some policy provisions and definitions/exclusions, the bill would do away with state lines.

Otherwise, each state will still be in charge of their exchange and licensing.

If you offer a policy that meets the minimum requirements, you should be able to offer it anywhere without worrying about quirks and other state-specific tics.

The competition will be in the extra benefits and services a carrier can offer compared to his competitors.

Bottom line: Right now, "states rights" says that each state should be able to say who can do business in the state, and under what terms. "Federal reform" may become an enlargement of Federal power (to the loss of the states) that may or may not be Constitutional.

THAT is one of the tough questions! How does the Fed. control something that has largely been within the control of individual states without violating the 10th and 11th amendments?

Remember when you had neighborhood and community banks? Then came the advent of "interstate banking." Was THAT a good thing?

Discuss among yourselves.

p.s. Don't wait too long, or Obama will sign it before you ever even know it happened. (see above post)

s4u, too - It's good to see decent questions and rational thought for a change!

I don't know if I can endorse Federal control over ANYTHING in my life.

I would welcome the feds giving me an OPPORTUNITY for greater control, by letting providers compete for my own money and letting me use my money to buy basic care at market prices.

"Or maybe it was Utah."

jw

[edit on 13-9-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by mental modulator


Notice that it says "allows" co-ops. This avoids the "states rights" problem I noted above if such were "required."

Exchanges are places to sell insurance. "Groups" buy insurance.

There already are some similar "groups" allowed in some states. When a carrier can sell coverage to a larger group of peole, it spreads the risk and lowers costs by counting on the larger number of healthy members to subsidize the unhealthy ones.

The "exchanges" will be places to choose among insurers, and will help those who don't belong to a "group." The co-op will be an opportunity to join a "group" that can get better rates from the exchange or an individual carrier.


OK, first things first.

Insurance of ANY kind is GAMBLING!

If you know the odds, you make an intelligent bet. If the "house" or a "player" knows something that changes the odds, that is CHEATING.

The P-EC exclusion argument is a red herring.

A valid PEC provides that if you become ill with a condition you knew about and didn't disclose, or were being treated for for "X" years before a NEW policy takes effect, the carrier's obligations are limited or waived.

It serves a legitimate purpose. Suppose "Bob" finds out tomorrow he's
HIV+. He immediately goes out and fills out an application, but denies he's been a needle user, engaged in unprotected sex with multiple partners, and has not been diagnosed with an illness (assuming they ASK).

When he makes a claim for AIDS treatment, the carrier can deny coverage for that. If he makes a claim for a broken leg from skydiving (which he DID disclose (assuming they ASKED), the carrier cannot use the HIV info to deny paying for his leg.

If he makes a "material misrepresentation" on the application, they can terminate the policy at anytime, claim or not.

The carrier assesses the "risk" it is betting on, based on the information made available to it at the time of application.

That's why there are "smokers" policies, and "non-smokers" policies. The ODDS are different for either type of BET the carrier is making.

The problems arise when you go from State A to State B, or policy 1 to policy 2. La. will not allow a Texas carrier to cover its residents, so if you move there from TX, you have to get a new policy.

You should be able to get the same coverage in La. at the same cost as you had in Texas. THAT's where PEC can hurt. What if you get a job and insurance in Texas. Then you get pregnant. If your boss moves you to La., you would have a "pre-existing" condition (pregnancy) under your new policy.

Same problem if you change jobs (and carriers/policies) in Texas.

The Republican plan (S 1324) would allow you to keep the same coverage, or at least limit the PEC not to apply to your "new" condition.

Very simple logic, but a needed common-sense application. Most carriers/policies already recognize this. The "reform" would require ALL insurers to do so.



At least it's not 1,000+ pages!



Just like for auto insurance. NO carrier wants to insure a risky driver, but states require them to write these "minimum coverage" policies if they want to write "preferred risk" coverage.

Same for health insurance. If you want to underwrite the "good" risks, you will have to contribute to cover the "bad" risks.

And so it SHOULD be. Most people need the same basic and preventive care. So those basic costs and services should be roughly equal over a large group. People should be able to bargain with their own (tax-free) money to buy those services from competing providers with basic-care overhead and equipment.

But some people skydive, ride bulls, drive drunk, or enter the convent.
The likelihood and costs of "catastrophic" illness or injury varies widely between them.

For regular folks, there should be a "pool" of money to cover car crashes, heart attacks, et c. Employers, carriers and the Feds. could pay into that pool for those types of expenses.

For skydivers, et al, there should be "parachute taxes" to add to the pool. Just as "drunk drivers" pay a higher rate for liability insurance, so should high-risk insureds pay extra for the pool.



Take a break! It's a good sign that some people at least WANT to know the alternatives, much less compare them!

"An informed citizenry is the bulwark of democracy." (attributed, inaccurately, to T. Jefferson, but good sense nonetheless)

jw

[edit on 13-9-2009 by jdub297]

*Throws Jdub with the wolves.*

What did we discuss in the other thread, Jdub?

If you're going to put the news networks as the MSM, do one thing:

ADD FOX NEWS!

Fox News is clearly part of MSM!

reply to post by jdub297

---

I like how you actually answer for me. cute. Though not appreciated.

Republicans are excellent campaigners. (Obama campaign was different). If they want to get an idea across they can.

They have a powerful outlet in Fox. It wasn't utilized. They have a powerful spokesperson in Palin. Controversial, but people listen. She wasn't utilized. They have a spokesperson in Steele. Who I listen to quite frequently.I like him personally though he gets more weenie-ish all the time. He has never said a word. Hell they could even use Beck, Rush, or Hannity.

If people don't know about it, they are not going to look for something they don't even know is there.


To answer your question, I don't watch the news. I watch local in the morning to see if anything catastrophic happened overnight and that is it. Somtimes CNN to watch a vote.

reply to post by nixie_nox

---

So basically even if it had been mentioned in the news, you wouldn't know about it yet you're still pointing fingers at Republicans for not making the media talk about their bills?

Fox was talking about DeMint's bill back in June and the Patients Choice Act in May. They're the only ones who've bothered to even mention it.

The rest of the media was talking about Michelle Obama's clothes and the Obama's dog at the time. Those were apparently very important political issues that just had to be covered instead of any health care bills.

Which is why I don't watch the talking heads.


I should of specified, I listen to radio mostly. Or read the paper, or internet sites. I am old school.

Which is why I don't know what anyone looks like.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by nixie_nox]

[edit on 13-9-2009 by nixie_nox]

The GOP has "introduced" NOTHING, nothing aside from a vitriolic attack against this President.

To read someone saying that they're being "stifled" is nothing more than a damn LIE.

They are the ones doing the stifling, all of it. To assert in any way that the GOP is doing anything FOR health insurance reform is simply dishonest.