The Baucus Health Bill: A Primer on What's in It

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
no public option, no thanks

That's the one good part of this proposal. It's still terrible overall, but at least it's not as terrible as the plans that were previously being considered by the left wing radicals.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Nice 35% tax on current health care plans that will be passed onto the consumer.

I especially like the part where this tax is implemented in 2013 AFTER to 2012 election

No new taxes on the middle class? Bull Shit.

Yes, because everyone in the middle class has a health care plan that costs $21k/year.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: First
It's basically a public option without being called a public option. And it has lots of room to grow into a single payer federal insurance program. At least from what I've read so far. Gotta read the whole bill first, but I'm not sure it's worth it until they actually finish it.

No,
it's more like letting Blue Cross / Blue shield operate across state lines. I actually like that sort of set up, because I haven't seen any efficiencies gained by for-profit health insurance. It looks like bulk of their cost saving comes from rejecting claims and coverage.

Interesting they target smokers, but not fatties. I'm pretty sure the long run costs of obesity > tobacco use.

Not a bad bill all in all, we'll see if economies of scale and interstate competition will force the costs down. Somehow I doubt that will be the case, because health insurance rates aren't that different across state lines.

I actually think I support a FAT TAX...tax the hell out of everything from fast food makers to potato chip makers to Coke, etc. Funds go DIRECTLY to a health care fund that GOVT cannot dip its hands into.

How do you define FAT TAX items? Can't wait to see the new Fat czar.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Since affordable insurance is available now to everyone, or at least that's one talking point against reform, who needs to have a $21,000 a year plan besides Wall Street millionaires?

i.e. a luxury tax seems fair for someone getting half as much in free insurance as many people earn to live on.

Why are good health plans bad?

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Patranus
Nice 35% tax on current health care plans that will be passed onto the consumer.

I especially like the part where this tax is implemented in 2013 AFTER to 2012 election

No new taxes on the middle class? Bull Shit.

Yes, because everyone in the middle class has a health care plan that costs $21k/year.

Sounds like someone is bitter because they don't have a "cadillac" health plan. If someone has a kickass health coverage, don't be a whiny bitch about.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Since affordable insurance is available now to everyone, or at least that's one talking point against reform, who needs to have a $21,000 a year plan besides Wall Street millionaires?

i.e. a luxury tax seems fair for someone getting half as much in free insurance as many people earn to live on.

Well most people don't really know the true cost of their health insurance, so that's a tough sell. How much does an avg policy cost on the employer side?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so the "fines" are tax penalties? the IRS will be the one collecting the fines? in other words, they'll take the "fine" out of your tax refund
i can't believe they want to make criminals out of people that don't want to buy an insurance product

It's the best way to pay for this and increases accountability from the dopes that truly believe their actions (or inaction in this case) doesn't affect other people when they end up in the ER with no insurance, forcing responsible Americans to pay for it because they thought they were Superman. Obama made a good point about auto insurance, it's the same thing.

BS.

First, no one is required to have auto insurance. You just have to get it if you choose to drive. Some people choose not to drive because of this. The same cannot be said for health insurance.

Second, when auto insurance was mandated in this state costs for insurance went up since the insurance industry KNEW you have no real alternative.

Finally, after all these years it has had NO EFFECT on the number of insured drivers. 1 out of 5 drivers still refuse to purchase insurance, and just become criminals instead.

This does not address persons who have a moral objection to insurance *raises hand*, does nothing to combat the actual costs of healthcare, does nothing to regulate the insurance industry, etc. In short, it's total and utter crap. I would refuse to participate in this, or anything similar. In fact, I have refused to participate in ANY system which mandates private insurance, and I have notified all levels of government of this moral objection. If needs be, I will fight to the death over this point.

BULLL SHIT!

I'm sure you'll fight to the death till you end up in some sort of trauma and end up in the ER on our tab. This has gotta be the second dumbest thing I've read this week.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

If the left wing radicals are against this bill, then it must be a step in the right direction.

:laugh:

I still don't like many of the premises of this bill, but the type of health care reform being proposed in this bill is much more reasonable than the garbage coming from the House.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: First
It's basically a public option without being called a public option. And it has lots of room to grow into a single payer federal insurance program. At least from what I've read so far. Gotta read the whole bill first, but I'm not sure it's worth it until they actually finish it.

No, it's not like that at all.

The more I learn about the co-ops, the more unsure I am that they can actually introduce competition into the industry. Unless they are extremely large (covering at least multiple states) I don't see how they will be able to negotiate competitive rates and remain viable. I also do not think they will be able to secure a lot of venture capital because they are non-profit organizations.

This is leading me to support a more public, national option, which I hadn't previously been a strong advocate for. I think it should be structured similarly to a national non-profit co-op, i.e., not taxpayer funded, not having mandated rates, ect. Basically a hybrid "public-private" company that must be self-sustaining. Whether or not such a thing is present in any of the bills is another issue.

With the way healthcare costs are rising, it won't be long before middle class families have plans worth 21k a year. I'm not sure if the bill contains a mechanism for for adjusting that number, but even if tied to inflation at current rates that won't be enough 10-15 years from now. I also have doubts about this bills ability to reign in costs (overall, not just to the government)

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

I actually think I support a FAT TAX...tax the hell out of everything from fast food makers to potato chip makers to Coke, etc. Funds go DIRECTLY to a health care fund that GOVT cannot dip its hands into.

i don't support taxing food because we all know the .gov pushed trans fat laden margarine as the 'healthy' alternative to butter, and misguidedly thought enriched white bread is better for you than whole wheat. further, there are massive subsidies for sh!t food. just take away the massive subsidies and you'd see a big decrease in the sh!t on the market.

also, you and i and everyone on here know that the fatties slurp diet coke like there's no tomorrow. so it'd be skinny nerds and their mt. dew/cheetos habit paying.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Patranus
Nice 35% tax on current health care plans that will be passed onto the consumer.

I especially like the part where this tax is implemented in 2013 AFTER to 2012 election

No new taxes on the middle class? Bull Shit.

Yes, because everyone in the middle class has a health care plan that costs $21k/year.

Sounds like someone is bitter because they don't have a "cadillac" health plan. If someone has a kickass health coverage, don't be a whiny bitch about.

i don't have a 'platinum' plan but i do have two 'gold' plans and i woudl gladly trade them for a single payer or nhs style system.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Patranus
Nice 35% tax on current health care plans that will be passed onto the consumer.

I especially like the part where this tax is implemented in 2013 AFTER to 2012 election

No new taxes on the middle class? Bull Shit.

Yes, because everyone in the middle class has a health care plan that costs $21k/year.

Sounds like someone is bitter because they don't have a "cadillac" health plan. If someone has a kickass health coverage, don't be a whiny bitch about.

i don't have a 'platinum' plan but i do have two 'gold' plans and i woudl gladly trade them for a single payer or nhs style system.

You are free to move to Canada or the UK at any time if their UHC plan is so superior.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: First
I edited my post.

It's weaker than many liberals want but will inevitably lead to single payer as costs go down because private insurers will have incentives to drop healthcare for their employees because it's cheaper to pay the penalty than provide the insurance, which is effectively adding to federal coffers and increasing the need for more federal dollars for insurance cop-opts, which will no doubt be single payer or some UHC derivative.

that's a leap of logic. why would independent non-profits, the blues, necessarily be taken over by the feds?

the co-opts sound like they're letting blues sell across state lines. didn't mccain think of that?

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Patranus
Nice 35% tax on current health care plans that will be passed onto the consumer.

I especially like the part where this tax is implemented in 2013 AFTER to 2012 election

No new taxes on the middle class? Bull Shit.

Yes, because everyone in the middle class has a health care plan that costs $21k/year.

Sounds like someone is bitter because they don't have a "cadillac" health plan. If someone has a kickass health coverage, don't be a whiny bitch about.

i don't have a 'platinum' plan but i do have two 'gold' plans and i woudl gladly trade them for a single payer or nhs style system.

You are free to move to Canada or the UK at any time if their UHC plan is so superior.

Just as you are free to move to Mexico or Afghanistan if you find our government to oppressive.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so the "fines" are tax penalties? the IRS will be the one collecting the fines? in other words, they'll take the "fine" out of your tax refund
i can't believe they want to make criminals out of people that don't want to buy an insurance product

I can't believe governments force people to buy car insurance!! THAT'S ANTI FREEDOM!!!!

*gets in car accident*

*you're at fault*

*can't reimburse other victim*

*rates rise for everyone*

*is a republican*

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Phokus
I can't believe governments force people to buy car insurance!! THAT'S ANTI FREEDOM!!!!

*gets in car accident*

*you're at fault*

*can't reimburse other victim*

*rates rise for everyone*

*is a republican*

yeah because dentists in suburban texas are the ones without car insurance

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Phokus
I can't believe governments force people to buy car insurance!! THAT'S ANTI FREEDOM!!!!

*gets in car accident*

*you're at fault*

*can't reimburse other victim*

*rates rise for everyone*

*is a republican*

yeah because dentists in suburban texas are the ones without car insurance

Yeah, because i was talking about specifically him and not about the idea that the general population being allowed to opt out of health insurance is a stupid idea.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Patranus
Nice 35% tax on current health care plans that will be passed onto the consumer.

I especially like the part where this tax is implemented in 2013 AFTER to 2012 election

No new taxes on the middle class? Bull Shit.

Yes, because everyone in the middle class has a health care plan that costs $21k/year.

Sounds like someone is bitter because they don't have a "cadillac" health plan. If someone has a kickass health coverage, don't be a whiny bitch about.

<--- State employee with a Cadillac health plan. With employer contributions included, I don't even think mine costs $21k. My wife and two kids are on the plan.

 

[Pens1566]

This bill is DOA. Waste of time from Baucus.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Yeah, because i was talking about specifically him and not about the idea that the general population being allowed to opt out of health insurance is a stupid idea.

i was making the point that, generally, it isn't republicans who don't have car insurance, using a dentists in suburban texas as a general example of a republican. i have no idea what FoBoT does.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
This bill is DOA. Waste of time from Baucus.

Good. Making it so that insurance must accept everyone isn't insurance. It's charity. Making it so that they can only adjust rates because of a few factors is ridiculous. Rates should be based on risk calculations, and the accuracy of those calculations come into question when you can't use certain information. Just like california doesn't allow insurance providers to charge people with sickle cell anemia more. Of Course it costs them more. Then again Cali is a horrible state, they also give uninsurable people fire insurance for people that live in areas prone to very hot fires. Absolutely stupid.

 

[CPA]

Would the health-care industry have to pay for the cost of reform?
Beginning in 2010, insurance companies would have to pay an annual total of $6 billion; pharmaceutical companies, $2.3 billion; medical-device makers, $4 billion; clinical laboratories, $750 million. The amount each individual company pays would depend on their market share.

Pharmaceutical companies would also, per an agreement struck with the Obama Administration earlier this year, cut name-brand-drug costs 50% for Medicare Part D recipients stuck in the "doughnut hole," the gap in prescription-drug coverage that exists once seniors' drug costs for the year exceed a certain amount ($2,700 in 2009). This provision would go into effect in 2010 and is expected to cost drugmakers $80 billion over 10 years. (Part D beneficiaries who get low-income subsidies, are enrolled in a retiree drug plan or earn more than $85,000 would not be eligible for the discount.)

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Sickening.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
With employer contributions included, I don't even think mine costs $21k. My wife and two kids are on the plan.

... and at the rate health costs are soaring, how long until you it does? Not very long, I'm sure. And just like the AMT fiasco, if they don't build in some mechanism to tie these amounts to actual health care costs, this will just turn into another big tax increase.

 

[classy]

I don't like the individual or family fines at all.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: classy
I don't like the individual or family fines at all.

If you fine companies those costs will just be passed onto consumers so no matter what happens the middle class ends up paying for it.

The middle class always ends up paying for government programs. There is no way around it.