Health Care Bill Debate

[Startraveler]

And just how is the funding going to be different? Please enlighten us?

Those programs are funded by payroll taxes on workers (and, in some instances, small premiums for the medical programs). Thus you can see why a change over time in the relative proportions of Social Security recipients and FICA tax-paying workers could be problematic.

The public option in H.R. 3200 is not an entitlement program, it is essentially a heath insurance company run by the government. Moreover, the bill mandates that all administrative and health benefit-related costs are to fully financed by the premiums of enrollees. The public option has no authority to tap into general revenue or anything like that--it is sustained entirely by payments from those who choose it. Or, in the words of the bill:

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner--

(A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and
(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of--

(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.​

This is substantially different than any of the programs you mentioned making any comparison with them flawed.

It will still be a government runs system, no different than SS, Medicaid or Medicare, the problem is that the Federals always are 4 to 7 time low in their estimated start up cost of any program, and then often the actual cost of running the programs are 400 to 800% higher than the budget estimates.

The estimates in this case are provided primarily by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, an organization with no ideological or partisan master to serve (and, frankly, one that is notoriously conservative about estimating the cost savings of programs like this). Again, comparisons to those other programs aren't helpful because they're funded by payroll taxes, the revenue collected from which can vary over time due to demographic changes. The public option is funded entirely by the people who choose to use it, avoiding that situation entirely.

 

[spidergoat]

And just...

It would work if Americans lived a healthier lifestyle. The bill should include a manditory 6-month tour of duty with something like Ameri-corp, where physical fitness and public service are emphasized. Citizens would be revitalized and re-educated to serve the homeland while eating only organic, self-produced foods.

 

[pjdude1219]

And just how is the funding going to be different? Please enlighten us?

It will still be a government runs system, no different than SS, Medicaid or Medicare, the problem is that the Federals always are 4 to 7 time low in their estimated start up cost of any program, and then often the actual cost of running the programs are 400 to 800% higher than the budget estimates.

Again just look at Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare, (Medicaid, and Medicare started in excellent economic times), and they are now just as broke as Social Security.

yeah because the republicans kept on cutting funding for them.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

yeah because the republicans kept on cutting funding for them.

Please provide citation, reference, and the actual bills that were vote on to cut said funding.

What you have stated is nothing but your usual partisan Hyperbole, with the usual lack of proof.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Those programs are funded by payroll taxes on workers (and, in some instances, small premiums for the medical programs). Thus you can see why a change over time in the relative proportions of Social Security recipients and FICA tax-paying workers could be problematic.

The public option in H.R. 3200 is not an entitlement program, it is essentially a heath insurance company run by the government. Moreover, the bill mandates that all administrative and health benefit-related costs are to fully financed by the premiums of enrollees. The public option has no authority to tap into general revenue or anything like that--it is sustained entirely by payments from those who choose it. Or, in the words of the bill:

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner--

(A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and
(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of--

(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.​

This is substantially different than any of the programs you mentioned making any comparison with them flawed.



The estimates in this case are provided primarily by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, an organization with no ideological or partisan master to serve (and, frankly, one that is notoriously conservative about estimating the cost savings of programs like this). Again, comparisons to those other programs aren't helpful because they're funded by payroll taxes, the revenue collected from which can vary over time due to demographic changes. The public option is funded entirely by the people who choose to use it, avoiding that situation entirely.

And how is that any different? All programs are funded by taxpayers, and the tax payer is out of money.

The Federal Government has no money of it's own, it makes no profit, it can only take money from the Citizen, or print fiat currency.

The major problem is that the cost estimates are undervalued, and by past experience with the Government, that can be anything form 4 to 49 times the real cost, what don't you understand the Government is Broke, the Treasury is Empty, the Money is nothing but ink on paper, the Federal Government has sold the Country to the Federal Reserve and any Country around the world foolish enough to take our promissory notes, and the current debt and deficits are more then the Total GNP.

The Federal Government could confiscate every last dollar in taxes for the People of America and we just might break even, and that would be about $15,000,000,000, but from what I have read I doubt it.

http://www.pgpf.org/about/nationaldebt/

"How exactly does a $56.4 trillion bill add up?" you ask. We know that the federal government carries both publicly held debt and debt for money it has borrowed from itself. Together, these sums are closing in on $11 trillion. This is the figure most commonly cited as our "national debt," but actually, that's only the start of the REAL national debt.

Right now, you are carrying a burden of about $184,000. That is each and every American's share of the US government's approximated $56.4 trillion in current obligations. And every year in which no down payments or reforms are made to these obligations, the total grows by $2 trillion to $3 trillion – or $6,600 to $10,000 per person – on autopilot.

How exactly does this $56.4 trillion bill add up? First, there are the federal government's known liabilities that it is legally obliged to fulfill. These include publicly held debt, military and civilian pensions and retiree health benefits. As of September 30, 2008, these liabilities added up to $13.5 trillion. ----
--------------------------------
----------So where does the remaining $43 trillion or so come from? That's what the government has promised to pay in Social Security and Medicare benefits in excess of related revenues. As of January 1, 2008, current and promised future Social Security benefits amounted to $6.6 trillion. And between Medicare's three programs (hospital insurance, outpatient, and prescription drug), current and future promised Medicare benefits amounted to $36.3 trillion.

 

[Startraveler]

And how is that any different? All programs are funded by taxpayers, and the tax payer is out of money.

This argument says that no consumer can purchase anything (and will still be unable to purchase anything in 2013 when the public option would go into effect). If that's the case, then no one would buy health insurance, public or private. And the problem will be much worse than anyone feared.

 

[pjdude1219]

Please provide citation, reference, and the actual bills that were vote on to cut said funding.

What you have stated is nothing but your usual partisan Hyperbole, with the usual lack of proof.

I'm sorry I just expect that as a normal human being you watch tv, listen to the radio, look at billboards and signs, or read some form of half way informative source somewhere. The republicans actively campaign on reducing and eliminating them the so called "entitlements" Its the reason why people in old folks homes vote democrat.

 

[Cowboy]

It would work if Americans lived a healthier lifestyle. The bill should include a manditory 6-month tour of duty with something like Ameri-corp, where physical fitness and public service are emphasized. Citizens would be revitalized and re-educated to serve the homeland while eating only organic, self-produced foods.

So all-around enslavement is the plan?

Non Servium.

 

[joepistole]

I think if you look at, most people are enslaved now. They are tied to a job because of the healthcare benefits it provides. Realistically, if you don't have a hundred million dollars that you are willing to place at risk and contribute 6 percent or more to that amount annually, you need health insurance...else you place the rest of us at risk for covering your medical bills.

Two it is not fair that some should pay nothing for their healthcare risk and others pick up the complete tab for healthcare. Three, we need to examine how to make the industry better. The current system is focused entirely on getting the best most knowledgeable, most skilled physican and related staff. We need bettter healthcare metrics and standards so that good proceedures interventions are rewarded. The current system rewards quantity.

I was in the hospital a few years ago and they were taking blood at every opportunity along with all kinds of other tests...not because they were necessary but because I coul afford them. I was a revenue and proft making opportunity for the healthcare industry. As a healthcare consumer I do not want to be burdened with unneeded proceedures simply because I can pay for them.

Healthcare reform is not about enslavement but freedom in the form of lower costs, better care, competitiion, and more equitable funding of the system.

 

[Cowboy]

I was in the hospital a few years ago and they were taking blood at every opportunity along with all kinds of other tests...not because they were necessary but because I coul afford them. I was a revenue and proft making opportunity for the healthcare industry. As a healthcare consumer I do not want to be burdened with unneeded proceedures simply because I can pay for them.

This is terrible, obviously, but not something that would require a socialist health care system to remedy.

Healthcare reform is not about enslavement but freedom in the form of lower costs, better care, competitiion, and more equitable funding of the system.

So pre-Civil War American slavery was actually about freedom in the form of food, clothing and housing?

 

[spidergoat]

So all-around enslavement is the plan?

Non Servium.

It's called duty to the homeland, comrade.

 

[joepistole]

This is terrible, obviously, but not something that would require a socialist health care system to remedy.

So pre-Civil War American slavery was actually about freedom in the form of food, clothing and housing?

A couple of things, first what is being proposed is not a socialist system. It could evolve to a singler payer system over time if government proved itself to be more competitive than private industry and that remains to be seen. The organs of the health insurance are and will continue to be owned in the private sector as they should. The health insurance being proposed by the Dems puts the focus not true improvements in productivity and quality as it is today. A few months ago I sold positions in a healthcare provider because when I listened to their managment conference call, it became clear to me that they were gaming their metrics. I have seen that far to often in private industry and when you see it, it is time to run. On the whole, the health industry in the US has been gaming the system for several decades. It needs a good dose of free market competition.

Freedom is freedom regardless of when and from what, it means the opportunity to make your own choices. Lack of choice, as is currently the state with healthcare, is not freedom. Being forced to pay higher than market rates because of market manipulations by suppliers is not freedom. Freedom is the right to choose. But freedom is also not without responsibility....and we need to be responsible with our freedoms too.

 

[iceaura]

This is terrible, obviously, but not something that would require a socialist health care system to remedy.

It's the only remedy we know of. Faith-healing, the laying on of invisible hands, has been proven ineffective.

 

[madanthonywayne]

ObamaCare to be Administered by IRS?

One of the oldest jokes about government run healthcare is that it would combine the compassion of the IRS with the efficiency of the DMV. Well, it turns out that the joke may well be at least half true. The healthcare reforms being debated right now envision a system largely administered by the IRS.

if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats' health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers.

In short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more intrusive IRS.

Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an "acceptable" health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don't have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.​

Read the whole article
Wow. This will really cause Americans to embrace his plan. There's nothing Americans love more than the IRS.

 

[spidergoat]

So you object to providing health care for all because of the symbolic associations you have with the taxman?

 

[joepistole]

A couple of things, first this thread seems more than a little hypocritical since all of threads in healthcare were consolidated into one or two. And the more succesful ones were merged and moved to Cesspool. So I guess this means we are back to where we started, ok.

Two, no one other than right wing whackos and dittoheads have ever said or intimiated that the IRS would have any increased or additional powers because of healthcare reform. In fact if you read the bill, most people will have no additional touchpoints with the IRS than what they have today. This is just more FEAR from Republicans and their healthcare industry masters.

Three the publisher referenced, The Washington Examiner, is a controversial right wing rag with ties to Fox News. It seems not only does the Washingtion Examiner have trouble attracting editors, it has a hard time with keeping subscribers. As numerous folks have complained they cannot get the rag to stop mailing them this trash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

 

[Startraveler]

I find the admission from the anonymous Republican House aide to be the most interesting part of that article:

You have millions of people who can't buy it without a subsidy, so they will have no choice but to accept the subsidy in order to buy insurance, and then the Health Choices Commissioner will have access to their tax records."

Millions can't afford to buy health insurance now. So, assuming we don't just ignore this fact, we seem to have two broad choices: provide it to them (via some sort of single-payer system) or provide them with subsidies to buy insurance in the private market. I assume conservatives would object to the first possibility and now this article seems to dislike allowing the government to provide subsidies.

So I suppose the message to those who can't afford decent coverage is "too bad"?

 

[iceaura]

The healthcare reforms being debated right now envision a system largely administered by the IRS.

I've dealt with the bureaucracy of the IRS, I've dealt with the bureaucracy of Blue Cross. The IRS was simpler, easier, and more amenable to reason.

It was you wingnuts came up with the idea of keeping the whole thing in the hands of private, for profit insurance companies (except for Medicare, VA, and other arenas you find important). The rest of us are just trying not to get reamed any worse by them than we are already.

It's not too late to go with single payer. Medicare runs with minimal IRS involvement. And that's where we're going to end up anyway - presuming we don't take the Mexico route.

 

[Gustav]

the op is guilty of rabble rousing and fear mongering
i demand this thread be closed

 

[madanthonywayne]

So you object to providing health care for all because of the symbolic associations you have with the taxman?

Not at all. I just came across the article pointing out what a large role the IRS would play in the proposed plan and thought it was interesting. I also thought a large role for the IRS might just be one more PR mess for the plan. I mean, is there anyone less popular in this country than the IRS?

I've dealt with the bureaucracy of the IRS, I've dealt with the bureaucracy of Blue Cross. The IRS was simpler, easier, and more amenable to reason.

Hmm. I've long found government agencies such as Medicare and Medicaid to be a major league pain in the ass. Not that private bureaucracies aren't also a pain in the ass, but government seems to raise things to a whole new level. It took me a long time to figure out how to correctly bill medicare so that most of my claims are paid. With medicaid, I've yet to be paid for a single claim I've filed. The medicaid situation is so bad that I"ve stopped taking it until I can figure out why I'm never getting paid. Private insurance companies can also be a pain in the ass, but I've never had a private company deny every single claim!

It's not too late to go with single payer. Medicare runs with minimal IRS involvement. And that's where we're going to end up anyway - presuming we don't take the Mexico route.

You make the "public option" sound good. But I really don't think the government can afford it right now. Balance the budget, pay off the debt, then get back to me.