The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[mjhp911]

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=901326&start=1425

[HarthorneWingo]

Yeah baby. Volume III. We should make books of our comments and donate them to the Library of Congress.

[HarthorneWingo]

This doesn't sound good. Anybody know anything about this tax?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/opini ... ml?_r=1&hp

Op-Ed Columnist
A Less Than Honest Policy
By BOB HERBERT
Published: December 28, 2009
NY Times Columnist

There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate’s version of President Obama’s effort to reform health care.

The bill that passed the Senate with such fanfare on Christmas Eve would impose a confiscatory 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which are popularly viewed as over-the-top plans held only by the very wealthy. In fact, it’s a tax that in a few years will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care.

Which is exactly what the tax is designed to do.

The tax would kick in on plans exceeding $23,000 annually for family coverage and $8,500 for individuals, starting in 2013. In the first year it would affect relatively few people in the middle class. But because of the steadily rising costs of health care in the U.S., more and more plans would reach the taxation threshold each year.

Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy.

Proponents say the tax will raise nearly $150 billion over 10 years, but there’s a catch. It’s not expected to raise this money directly. The dirty little secret behind this onerous tax is that no one expects very many people to pay it. The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans.

These lower-value plans would have higher out-of-pocket costs, thus increasing the very things that are so maddening to so many policyholders right now: higher and higher co-payments, soaring deductibles and so forth. Some of the benefits of higher-end policies can be expected in many cases to go by the boards: dental and vision care, for example, and expensive mental health coverage.

Proponents say this is a terrific way to hold down health care costs. If policyholders have to pay more out of their own pockets, they will be more careful — that is to say, more reluctant — to access health services. On the other hand, people with very serious illnesses will be saddled with much higher out-of-pocket costs. And a reluctance to seek treatment for something that might seem relatively minor at first could well have terrible (and terribly expensive) consequences in the long run.

If even the plan’s proponents do not expect policyholders to pay the tax, how will it raise $150 billion in a decade? Great question.

We all remember learning in school about the suspension of disbelief. This part of the Senate’s health benefits taxation scheme requires a monumental suspension of disbelief. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, less than 18 percent of the revenue will come from the tax itself. The rest of the $150 billion, more than 82 percent of it, will come from the income taxes paid by workers who have been given pay raises by employers who will have voluntarily handed over the money they saved by offering their employees less valuable health insurance plans.

Can you believe it?

I asked Richard Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., about this. (Labor unions are outraged at the very thought of a health benefits tax.) I had to wait for him to stop laughing to get his answer. “If you believe that,” he said, “I have some oceanfront property in southwestern Pennsylvania that I will sell you at a great price.”

A survey of business executives by Mercer, a human resources consulting firm, found that only 16 percent of respondents said they would convert the savings from a reduction in health benefits into higher wages for employees. Yet proponents of the tax are holding steadfast to the belief that nearly all would do so.

“In the real world, companies cut costs and they pocket the money,” said Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America and a leader of the opposition to the tax. “Executives tell the shareholders: ‘Hey, higher profits without any revenue growth. Great!’ ”

The tax on health benefits is being sold to the public dishonestly as something that will affect only the rich, and it makes a mockery of President Obama’s repeated pledge that if you like the health coverage you have now, you can keep it.

Those who believe this is a good idea should at least have the courage to be straight about it with the American people.

[R33D33]

When the employer gives someone more cash in salary it is taxed. But if he gives him more cash in the form of paying for his health insurance, that is not taxed.

Thus it became popular to offer to pay an employee part of his salary in the form of picking up the tab for his health insurance. The employee likes it, because he gets more. The employer likes it, because he will be paying out the same amount of money anyway, but now his employee is happy. The insurance company likes it, because they can offer much more [i.e. expensive and unnecessary items] insurance than they would if it was selling straight to the employee and he had to pick up the tab. But this only raises the price of medical insurance. Medical treatment is something else.

The real problem that shot health care prices through the roof was medicare and medicaide. The rule is whenever the gov subsidizes anything [student loans, health care, housing, to name the big 3] prices of it go up. This is because of the law of supply and demand. When demand goes up, prices go up.

Now demand means not just that I want a thing. After all. if I get up in the morning and want a yacht, that does not change anything in the real world if I can't pay for it. "Demand" in an economic sense means I want it and can pay for it. Ergo, when the gov't is paying for things, demand for them goes up, and therefor so do prices.

[kane2021]

Ok sense there is a fresh start I have a question. I wanted to start a topic on it but figured it would get move into that 99 page mess.

I dont know where to start so I ask you guys. I have heard rumors of a mandatory health insurance bill coming into law. Says that every American must purchase insurance or face a fine or time.

I have seen some stories but honestly dont understand what im reading in them. I here people talking about it but that mostly baseless rants by people who just like to complain before getting facts.

What is the deal with this? Is it law? Coming into law? Getting shot down?

What is the fine? What constitutes insurance coverage? Partial-full?

And how in the free world does anyone force a person to spend money on a 3rd party service or product? This isnt like auto insurance. Thats a privilege that if you cant afford the car you drop the car and dont pay auto insurance. (I should get my facts before I go off on my own rant)

What is this about. Let me know fellas. Got a lot of people out here very worried.

[knicks742]

Ok sense there is a fresh start I have a question. I wanted to start a topic on it but figured it would get move into that 99 page mess.

I dont know where to start so I ask you guys. I have heard rumors of a mandatory health insurance bill coming into law. Says that every American must purchase insurance or face a fine or time.

I have seen some stories but honestly dont understand what im reading in them. I here people talking about it but that mostly baseless rants by people who just like to complain before getting facts.

What is the deal with this? Is it law? Coming into law? Getting shot down?

What is the fine? What constitutes insurance coverage? Partial-full?

And how in the free world does anyone force a person to spend money on a 3rd party service or product? This isnt like auto insurance. Thats a privilege that if you cant afford the car you drop the car and dont pay auto insurance. (I should get my facts before I go off on my own rant)

What is this about. Let me know fellas. Got a lot of people out here very worried.

*Patiently waiting Wingo's response to this. It should be great*

[duetta]

The mandate is utterly bogus. It represents nothing less than a gift to the insurance industry from their well-compensated lackeys.

[kane2021]

So its on?

[HarthorneWingo]

Knicks742, I honestly don't know what to think of of the Senate bill as evidence by my posting the Herbert op-ed above. You know that I don't want insurance companies doing what they've been doing to the middle class. There are so many better systems around the world, I can't believe that our country isn't capable of taking the best of each system and coming up with the best health care system in the world. But our country politically is so fractured right now.

[mrpoetryNmotion]

I swear politics has consumed my dad's life...he is as far right as anyone can be..my mom is a democrat (Weird, my parents are like total opposites in every sense of the meaning..)

My Dad's most commonly used word is communist...

It's cool to have your own viewpoints and beliefs on the matter but when something consumes your mind and your attention so much so that you are ruining personal relationships when does one realize this?

[kane2021]

Im no politician. Im doing my research and I cant find nothing forward on this health care thing. People are not happy though. This could be the rock under that uneasy the bolder. I dont want to go off. But that is not the way to treat people you lead to believe that are free.

Talk about keeping it in the family. Buy insurance from my good friends at signa. If your going to fine people and you really cared about people having health insurance why not provide them with medicaid for the fine? Paying a fine for not purchasing a 3rd party service or product is,............ no good.

I dont see money coming in. I dont see ways of helping money come in. I see it going out though. For those who are too rich get it for free, but too poor to buy there own, this is a bullet.

[HarthorneWingo]

Im no politician. Im doing my research and I cant find nothing forward on this health care thing. People are not happy though. This could be the rock under that uneasy the bolder. I dont want to go off. But that is not the way to treat people you lead to believe that are free.

Talk about keeping it in the family. Buy insurance from my good friends at signa. If your going to fine people and you really cared about people having health insurance why not provide them with medicaid for the fine? Paying a fine for not purchasing a 3rd party service or product is,............ no good.

I dont see money coming in. I dont see ways of helping money come in. I see it going out though. For those who are too rich get it for free, but too poor to buy there own, this is a bullet.

From what I understand, there are government stipends to help those you cannot afford it to get. For the real poor people out there, I guess there is always getting their welfare medical card. What we don't want happening is people waiting until their physical condition becomes an emergency and then going to an emergency room for treatment which increases the costs tremendously.

I posted this link before. I hope you guys take the time to watch it because it's really well done program (Frontline on PBS) and takes us around the world to other countries to experience what their health care system is like and what problems each has. The U.S. is something like number 57 (or is it 37? in either case, it's really bad) in health care. If it were "basketball," we'd all be calling for the coach's head on a silver platter.

Anyhow, here's the link, I hope you all watch it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... dtheworld/

[kane2021]

I checked out the video. Sicko is a film that goes into the same subjects. Our health system is flawed badly.

To me insurance is the biggest rip off, robbery, scam, there is out there. You pay and pay. When you need it they cover a portion. And it has to be approved. Then your rates go up. There are limits to how much they pay. Truth is insurance is nothing more then a loan. And you are penalized for using it.

Doesnt the insurance industry sound like the old mafia? A racket? Organized crime? Because thats what they do. "Hey I will protect you and your interests, for a fee". Except when you dont pay organized crime breaks bones. Insurance breaks banks.

I have very deep feelings about insurance in the U.S. I dont like it.

If you organized your people, and offered a service to protect family run businesses in your neighborhood from crime, and hard times, for a fee, thats a reco case, no?

[HarthorneWingo]

I checked out the video. Sicko is a film that goes into the same subjects. Our health system is flawed badly.

To me insurance is the biggest rip off, robbery, scam, there is out there. You pay and pay. When you need it they cover a portion. And it has to be approved. Then your rates go up. There are limits to how much they pay. Truth is insurance is nothing more then a loan. And you are penalized for using it.

Doesnt the insurance industry sound like the old mafia? A racket? Organized crime? Because thats what they do. "Hey I will protect you and your interests, for a fee". Except when you dont pay organized crime breaks bones. Insurance breaks banks.

I have very deep feelings about insurance in the U.S. I dont like it.

If you organized your people, and offered a service to protect family run businesses in your neighborhood from crime, and hard times, for a fee, thats a RICO case, no?

There are a lot of people who've lost their family members because the insurance co. pulled the coverage on a technicality who would say "yes, it's criminal."

Look, the new bill isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it does address some of these important aspects.

1. An insurance company cannot deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.

2. An insurance company cannot terminate coverage like it did before if you had a serious illness.

3. Children of parents can now stay on their parents family policy until the age of 26.

Also, there is still a lot of negotiating between the House and the Senate over the differences in their respective bills. The House bill has a public option to it. The House dems have said that if there is no public option in the final bill, then they are going to demand other provisions to increase competition amongst the insurance companies. So, we are still a little ways away from the final draft.

Here's an op-ed from renowned economist Paul Krugman (NY Times) on the Senate bill:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opini ... ugman.html

Op-Ed Columnist
Pass the Bill

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 17, 2009

A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.

But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.

Yes, the filibuster-imposed need to get votes from “centrist” senators has led to a bill that falls a long way short of ideal. Worse, some of those senators seem motivated largely by a desire to protect the interests of insurance companies — with the possible exception of Mr. Lieberman, who seems motivated by sheer spite.

But let’s all take a deep breath, and consider just how much good this bill would do, if passed — and how much better it would be than anything that seemed possible just a few years ago. With all its flaws, the Senate health bill would be the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, greatly improving the lives of millions. Getting this bill would be much, much better than watching health care reform fail.

At its core, the bill would do two things. First, it would prohibit discrimination by insurance companies on the basis of medical condition or history: Americans could no longer be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or have their insurance canceled when they get sick. Second, the bill would provide substantial financial aid to those who don’t get insurance through their employers, as well as tax breaks for small employers that do provide insurance.

All of this would be paid for in large part with the first serious effort ever to rein in rising health care costs.

The result would be a huge increase in the availability and affordability of health insurance, with more than 30 million Americans gaining coverage, and premiums for lower-income and lower-middle-income Americans falling dramatically. That’s an immense change from where we were just a few years ago: remember, not long ago the Bush administration and its allies in Congress successfully blocked even a modest expansion of health care for children.

Bear in mind also the lessons of history: social insurance programs tend to start out highly imperfect and incomplete, but get better and more comprehensive as the years go by. Thus Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans.

Look, I understand the anger here: supporting this weakened bill feels like giving in to blackmail — because it is. Or to use an even more accurate metaphor suggested by Ezra Klein of The Washington Post, we’re paying a ransom to hostage-takers. Some of us, including a majority of senators, really, really want to cover the uninsured; but to make that happen we need the votes of a handful of senators who see failure of reform as an acceptable outcome, and demand a steep price for their support.

The question, then, is whether to pay the ransom by giving in to the demands of those senators, accepting a flawed bill, or hang tough and let the hostage — that is, health reform — die.

Again, history suggests the answer. Whereas flawed social insurance programs have tended to get better over time, the story of health reform suggests that rejecting an imperfect deal in the hope of eventually getting something better is a recipe for getting nothing at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, America would be in much better shape today if Democrats had cut a deal on health care with Richard Nixon, or if Bill Clinton had cut a deal with moderate Republicans back when they still existed.

But won’t paying the ransom now encourage more hostage-taking in the future? Maybe. But the next big fight, over the future of the financial system, will be very different. If the usual suspects try to water down financial reform, I say call their bluff: there’s not much to lose, since a merely cosmetic reform, by creating a false sense of security, could well end up being worse than nothing.

Beyond that, we need to take on the way the Senate works. The filibuster, and the need for 60 votes to end debate, aren’t in the Constitution. They’re a Senate tradition, and that same tradition said that the threat of filibusters should be used sparingly. Well, Republicans have already trashed the second part of the tradition: look at a list of cloture motions over time, and you’ll see that since the G.O.P. lost control of Congress it has pursued obstructionism on a literally unprecedented scale. So it’s time to revise the rules.

But that’s for later. Right now, let’s pass the bill that’s on the table.

[newguy]

Krugman writes:

At its core, the bill would do two things. First, it would prohibit discrimination by insurance companies on the basis of medical condition or history: Americans could no longer be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or have their insurance canceled when they get sick. Second, the bill would provide substantial financial aid to those who don’t get insurance through their employers, as well as tax breaks for small employers that do provide insurance.

All of this would be paid for in large part with the first serious effort ever to rein in rising health care costs.


To Krugman's first point regarding pre-existing I recommend you read this: "Medicare’s Refusal of Medical Claims Continues to Outpace Private Rate"

http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459

To his second point, I haven't kicked the tires on this claim... so I don't know... if he's right, then great. But frankly, not only do we face an unemployment problem, not only do we face a mammoth deficit problem, we face a huge underfunded entitlement problem... so what do we do?... we add a whopper to the entitlement menu. I would like Krugman to explain why Texas is in so much better shape than California. (And I would have liked for Krugman to state that private insurance profits range from 5% to 9%... or even better... to have predicted this recession... only 12 economists did.)

To his third point, that the new senate healthcare reform bill "is a serious effort to rein in costs" is just plain delusional. This "give me a trillion today so I can save you trillions tomorrow" proposal reminds me of the old Nigerian mail fraud scheme. The bill is a serious effort to maintain a political base. If I'm wrong, and this bill is not about politics... that it truly is about reining in costs... then it's about rationing.

[HarthorneWingo]

Hey Newguy, welcome. You raise some good points. Let me start with "the googling on the internets" and see what I can learn.

In the meantime, I'd be interested in reading what you thought of the Frontline video on world comparative health care expose' (scroll up).

[duetta]

IMHO, there are major problems with both the House and Senate Bills, almost all of which have to do with attempts to coddle establishment interests - be it the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, the AMA, malpractice lawyers, etc. What is undeniable is that health care spending is completely out of control, and is making every American product more expensive in real-world terms, and hence every American business less competitive in a global marketplace.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthEx ... _Sheet.asp

Now, we know that America's imagined elite will never voluntarily slash their own compensation, even though their share of compensation has grown exponentially since the 1950s - an era when America was still capable of building products and winning wars. So now the only hope of restoring American competitiveness appear to lie in dramatically curtailing the cost of health care at the same time that an imploding dollar leads to our remaining American exports becoming more competitive. Otherwise, our goose is cooked as an economic power.

[kane2021]

If we made a national heath care sytem that would be a devastating blow to the health insurance industry,......... correct?

If they made it mandatory that every American purchased there own health insurance it would be a devastating blow to the people.

Either situation the health care providers get taken care of.

Please feel free to correct me if im wrong, but this sounds like a choice on who to screw. The people, or 3rd party insurance companys. And IMHO a law like this means the people lose.

It sounds to me like a total cop out, and it falls in the laps of the poor middle class. Not the rich insurance providers. Its us, the people, that need health care, and cant afford it. Forcing us buy it from them, helps the health field, helps the insurance companys, and creates a new monthly expense for the people that some simply cannot afford.

Most "odd job" type companys have done away with paid insurance benefits. Some have lost there jobs, including insurance, and make to much on unemployment to get free insurance, but dont collect enough to purchase there own.

It deeply bothers me. This is no solution for us, its a solution for them.

[richardhutnik]

A problem with the malpractice set up we have now, is that society uses it to punish companies, and individuals, who engage in unethical behavior, to deter such behavior. Society encourages individuals to sue and get a large payday, so that people get scared and don't act unethical. When I questioned this practice in a college class, the professor asked me exactly how we were going to deter individuals from being evil if we didn't do this. It is a problem, in part that if a jerk who isn't wealthy totally ruins your life, you are ruined, and rich individuals are able to get away with such behavior.

Punitive damages should be separate from the compensation awards people suing. A person could get $X but the punitive damages could be more or less. People get taken care of this way. Running a system like this would cut out lawsuits that are lottery tickets and help others get what they need as compensation.

- Rich

[HarthorneWingo]

A problem with the malpractice set up we have now, is that society uses it to punish companies, and individuals, who engage in unethical behavior, to deter such behavior. Society encourages individuals to sue and get a large payday, so that people get scared and don't act unethical. When I questioned this practice in a college class, the professor asked me exactly how we were going to deter individuals from being evil if we didn't do this. It is a problem, in part that if a jerk who isn't wealthy totally ruins your life, you are ruined, and rich individuals are able to get away with such behavior.

Punitive damages should be separate from the compensation awards people suing. A person could get $X but the punitive damages could be more or less. People get taken care of this way. Running a system like this would cut out lawsuits that are lottery tickets and help others get what they need as compensation.

- Rich

Rich, I didn't get the point you were trying to make here. I know when I sue police departments in civil rights cases, it's by suing that we are able to change policy. If you hit somebody in the pocket enough times for the same problem, guess what? They fix the problem.