Daily News
A kind reader has submitted the following article for your review, comment, and intellectual stimulation. All credit to Kiplinger, and we encourage you to visit their site.
|
Health Care Reform: What It Means for Retirees
by Susan B. Garland, Editor, Kiplinger’s Retirement Report Changes to Medicare and to the individual insurance market will affect retirees. Here are key details that you need to know. On Tuesday, President Obama signed a law that finalizes his landmark health care overhaul. Here are key provisions that could affect you. Medicare. The Part D prescription-drug doughnut hole will be gradually reduced by 2020. Seniors who reach the doughnut hole in 2010 will receive a $250 rebate. Starting in 2011, drug companies will be required to provide a 50% discount on brand-name drugs bought in the coverage gap. The federal subsidy for Part D premiums will be reduced for higher-income beneficiaries. Cost sharing for preventive-care services is eliminated. A new advisory board would submit recommendations to Congress to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare spending. The board is not allowed to submit proposals that would ration care or change benefits. More Medicare beneficiaries could be snared by the Part B premium surcharge for high-income seniors. The law freezes the income thresholds for income-related Part B premiums from 2011 to 2019. Medicare Advantage plans. Studies have found that Advantage plans cost the government 14% more on average than traditional Medicare. To get costs more in line with traditional Medicare, the new law freezes federal payments to private Medicare Advantage plans at 2010 levels. These plans will be required to spend at least 85% of their revenues on patient care. Plans that prove they provide high-quality efficient care will get rebates from the government. New taxes. The law would raise the Medicare payroll tax by an additional 0.9% (to 2.35%, from the current 1.45%) on earned income above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for joint filers. It would also impose a Medicare tax of 3.8% on investment income, such as dividends and interest, for individuals with adjusted gross income above $200,000 and joint filers with AGI above $250,000. These taxes will go into effect in 2013. Distributions from pensions, IRAs, 401(k)s and other qualified retirement plans will be exempt. Self-employed people will have to pay the additional tax. Medical tax deductions. Beginning in the 2013 tax year, the threshold for the itemized medical deduction rises to 10% of AGI, from the current 7.5%. Individuals age 65 and older, and their spouses, would be exempt for the tax years 2013 through 2016. Early retirees and self-employed. For most workers who receive employer-sponsored coverage, the new law is not likely to have much impact. But the law provides a number of protections for those who need to buy insurance in the individual market. Six months after enactment, health insurers cannot place lifetime limits on the value of coverage or revoke existing coverage. Starting in 2014, insurers must accept all applicants, including anyone with preexisting medical conditions. Until then, individuals with preexisting conditions who have been uninsured for more than six months will be eligible to enroll in a national high-risk pool and receive subsidized premiums. Cost sharing will be capped at $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families. This could be especially helpful to early retirees in Arizona and Nevada, which do not have state high-risk pools. It could also help Floridians, because Florida’s is not open to new enrollees. Exchanges and coverage subsidies. Nearly everyone would be required to buy coverage, or pay a penalty. Early retirees, the self-employed and others without insurance would be able to purchase coverage through state-based exchanges. Tax credits would be available to individuals and families with income between 133% and 400% of the poverty level (that’s $19,378 to $58,280 for a couple). Private insurance companies could sell policies through the exchanges. Buyers would choose among four benefit categories. Retiree health plans. If you are 55 or older and receive retiree health benefits from your employer, you could benefit from a government reinsurance program. The program will reimburse employers or insurers for 80% of retiree claims between $15,000 and $90,000. Payments from the reinsurance program will be used to lower the costs for enrollees in the employer plan. The program will end on January 1, 2014. It will not reimburse costs for retirees who are eligible for Medicare. Long-term care. In 2011, workers can enroll in a national insurance program to cover non-medical services in case of disability. After a five-year vesting period, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program will provide individuals who become disabled with a benefit of about $50 a day. The program will be financed with voluntary payroll deductions.
|
Give us your opinions in the comment box below.
February 10th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, I think there is a strong possbility that some meaningful changes may well occur in our health care system. Did anyone notice the whirlwind of White House meetings and joint press conferences this week? President Obama stated clearly and strongly that
interstate competition and malpractice/tort reform are now on the the table. He will take tremendous heat from the trial lawyers lobby on this but seems committed. Equally clear and strong was Sen. McConnell saying the status quo was unacceptable and that he is willing to work on a compromise.
I hope for all our sakes and our country’s sake that both are the President and the Senator are serious.
Another observation. The compromises they are talking about were outlined months ago by several
contributors to Boomer-ville. Perhaps the “powers that be” could save us all a lot of time, energy and frustration by simply monitoring Boomer-ville for solutions to the problems that plague our nation!
Let’s hear it for Boomer-ville!
January 7th, 2010 at 7:30 am
The disappointment continues. Candidate and President Obama promised on an open and transparent process in hammering out differnces in the vastly different versions of Senate and House health care bills. He delivered neither.
The President is now leading a “fast track” effort to reconcile the bills. “Fast track” means few, if any, of our elected officials have read the legislation much less given thoughful consideration to its far-reaching impacts on the country. The quote below is from today’s Washington Post
“In a White House meeting Tuesday evening, Obama and Democratic leaders agreed on a fast-track alternative to the traditional House-Senate conference committee. The informal approach would still require the House and Senate to pass identical bills but would minimize the opportunity for Senate Republicans — who united in opposition to the legislation — to slow the process. Under the plan, the House would pass the Senate bill amended with new compromise provisions, then send the package back to the Senate for one final vote.”
This is not how a democracy is supposed to work. I do not agree with some of the Republican ideas.
But to deny those ideas to see the light of day on the Senate Floor is a dangerours disservice to us all.
January 6th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Obama and his minions have gone behind closed doors to close on the health care plan. This regardless of the fact that all polls say America doesn’t want it. How does this happen in America…or is it Amerika. Is this a dictatorship? How can they pass this despite the will of the people?
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
What a terrible waste of time and resources. Our Washington leaders have spent a year working on solving our country’s health system problems. The bills from both the House and the Senate will do more harm than good in my view.
Most of the insurance companies will simply raise premiums to the point where 1) they are compensated for extra costs of removals of life time caps, 2) they are compensated for the extra costs of paying for pre-existing conditions, and 3) where they can make a profit and stay within the 80% to 85% payout requirement. What a joke.
The last minute horse trading for votes does great harm to our country. Senator Nelson’s last minute gambit of trading his vote for Medicaid dollars is one of many examples. Shame on him. Why should the other 49 states pay for the cost of Nebraska’s medicaid program?
The founding fathers feared that the federal institutions they created would run roughshod over the people and the common good. These health care bills do just that. It may be time to throw all the rascals out of office and to form a new government. Our current federal elected officials think they know best and that the people are not paying attention. I hope and think these officials are wrong.
November 19th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
What a difference a year makes. In listening to candidate Obama, I thought “here is a leader who has the mental capacity to understand complex issues AND the communication skills to move the country towards solving complex problems….and solving those issues in a way that most Americans could support and rally behind. How wrong I was. Health care is the latest example.
Skimming a summary of the Senate bill leaves me bewildered. Just like the House bill, the Senate bill does almost nothing to attack the COST of CARE. The bill focuses on the people and entities paying the bills without addressing the underlying cost issues. Defensive medicine will be in the order of the day…magnifying costs…not reducing costs. 31 million more people will be covered with very little consideration given to ramping up the resources needed to provide needed services. The insurance reforms ( no lifetime max, no preexisting condtions) will likely drive up the cost of insurance premiums for everyone.
The bill is ripe with goodies for the powerful. Trial lawyers will get a huge pay increase. Senator Reid’s
state of Nevada (and 4 other states) get special funding and relief. Not because of any reasonable logic.
But because these senators are in the power structure.
President Obama – what a disapointment.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
One of the travesties of the current health care bill is the almost total lack of attention to reduciing costs.
Defensive medicine…much due to doctors’ fear of lawsuits and the skyrocketing costs of liability insurance…costs billions….according to the study below about $240 Billion annually. Instead of addressing tort reform,,,the current house bill makes the situation worse. America needs for President Obama to “JUST SAY NO” to THE TRIAL LAWYERS lobby. What a disappointment that he is squandering this chance to dramatically reduce the cost of health care.
The following article appeared today in the Wall Street Journal – page A24.
REVIEW & OUTLOOK NOVEMBER 12, 2009.. . . And a Buried Tort Bomb
A stealth provision that would undermine state damage caps.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers estimates that last year $240 billion in health expenditures were the result of doctors ordering unnecessary procedures to protect against the risk of lawsuits.
The hidden Pelosi tort bomb is one more example of the stealth radicalism that defines ObamaCare. If it passes in anything like its current form, we are going to be cleaning up the mess for decades to come
In his September address to Congress, President Obama made a nod to bipartisanship by acknowledging that excessive litigation “may be” contributing to rising health costs, and he proposed state “demonstration projects” to test medical tort reform. This wasn’t much of a concession, but it apparently was still too much for House Democrats, who are using their bill to subvert reform that is already on the books in many states.
Buried in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 1,990-page bill is a provision that provides “incentive payments” to each state that develops an “alternative medical liability law” that encourages “fair resolution” of disputes and “maintains access to affordable liability insurance.” Sounds encouraging. Read on, however, and you come to this nugget: The state only qualifies if its new law “does not limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.”
Holy Bill Lerach.
Huge contingency fees and damage awards are the mother’s milk of frivolous lawsuits. That’s why 30 states have adopted caps on awards as the core of their reform, with huge success. Texas imposed malpractice caps in 2003, and the state has been rewarded with fewer lawsuits, a 50% drop in malpractice premiums, and a flood of new doctors. The House bill is intended to discourage other states from doing the same.
The Pelosi bill also provides these incentives only if states adopt watered-down alternatives to existing malpractice caps. Those alternatives include certificate-of-merit rules, which in theory require lawyers to get medical proof before suing but in practice mean that lawyers recruit and finance “expert” witnesses.
States could also provide “early offer” rules, which are supposed to encourage fair settlement of legitimate claims. But as organizations like the Manhattan Institute have noted, those offers only work if combined with restrictions on lawyer fees and damage awards that reduce the incentive to go for the jackpot judgment.
The Senate bill avoids tort reform entirely, notwithstanding Mr. Obama’s showy pledge before a national TV audience.
Never mind that reducing medical lawsuits is a rare reform provision that really would reduce health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the savings at $54 billion over a decade. Consulting firm Tillinghast Towers-Perrin has suggested the direct cost of medical tort litigation is more like $30 billion annually. PriceWaterhouseCoopers estimates that last year $240 billion in health expenditures were the result of doctors ordering unnecessary procedures to protect against the risk of lawsuits.
The hidden Pelosi tort bomb is one more example of the stealth radicalism that defines ObamaCare. If it passes in anything like its current form, we are going to be cleaning up the mess for decades to come.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
What is remarkably interesting is how the demographics of voters are fluctuating dramatically. I heard a humorous quote encouraging readers of the Huffington Post to get out of their pajamas, get off the computer, and get a job. Is this the demographic who showed up en masse at the polls to vote for Obama?
Perhaps the word “mandate” should be used not for an overwhelming majority of voters voting for one person or idea, as it has been used historically, but instead for an overwhelming change or shift from one election to another. Was this a mandate? If so, what were they saying?
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
I do not believe, by any stretch, that our businesses will be better off by having government decide whether they stay in business, or by telling them who should earn how much. A business that is thriving is likely doing so at least in part because of outstanding leadership, and outstanding leadership deserves to be rewarded.
Ask yourself this…if your 401K has tanked, and a leader was appearing on the horizon who may actually be able to put it back in the black, wouldn’t you want that person to be well paid? I’m sure the vast majority of us, were we guaranteed that this person’s leadership would result in us earning back what we have lost, we would say go for it!! and then we’d give him a great big raise!!
October 25th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Elkhorn…good find on the calculator. EVERYONE SHOULD TRY THIS. My insurance right now costs about 1/20th of what it will cost under this new legislation. If I understand this correctly, I’ll have to get another job to pay for it. I agree that everyone is getting tired of the whole health care debate, and that is when we are most vulnerable to a huge government entitlement program being put into place, and such programs are difficult to eliminate. If we think the charges of racism are bad now, think what they will be when, in essence, in an attempt to end another long-term entitlement, your Senator is accused of taking insurance away from poor children.
Of course, the administration of the programs will create lots and lots of jobs, right? Government jobs, that is.
Hey ff–good info on the corporations succumbing to the pressure. Once in a while Beck walks awfully close to the edge, but I have been digging the questions he wants answered. The red telephone is a nice touch.
Speaking of a direct line to the President, why doesn’t someone send Obama a copy of the movie “Fail Safe.” And in that movie, at least common sense prevailed. We could negotiate with China. We CANNOT negotiate with Iran.
October 19th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Many of us seem to have experienced “health care reform” fatigue for the past few weeks. I can be counted in that catgegory. But now is a most important time in the process to be engaged. There is still time for the peoples’ voices to be heard. A very good source of factual information is located at
KFF.org. You can do a “side by side” comparison of the competing alternatives. Do your homework, draw your own conclusions and then let your elected officials know what you think.
The site has a “premium subsidy calculator” that I find amazing on two levels. One, the computations are so complicated that you need a computer to figure out amounts! Two, the administrative costs of
this one piece of the puzzle will be staggering…..not one cent of this money will be spent on creating
effective, low cost health care. The link is:
http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx
October 7th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
SNOWE AND LINCOLN WILL DETERMINE EVERYTHING
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 6, 2009
Watch how Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln vote in the Senate Finance Committee on the Baucus version of the Obama healthcare plan. As Snowe and Lincoln go, so will the Congress.
The Democrats need Snowe’s vote desperately, to convince wavering moderate Democrats that they can offer a veneer, however thin, of bipartisanship to the health proposal. If Snowe, their last chance at a Republican vote, opposes the Obama/Baucus proposal, there is no hope of a bipartisan fig leaf for the package.
On the other hand, if Snowe backs the bill, it will send a signal to moderate Democrats that it’s OK to join in and the bill will probably attract the 60 votes it needs for Senate passage.
Lincoln’s vote becomes critical if Snowe votes no. Lincoln is probably the single most vulnerable Democrat running for reelection in 2010. She is the proverbial canary in the coalmine. If she makes it, so will all the Democrats. Hailing from a conservative Southern state, her poll numbers suggest that she would be in a heap of trouble with a stiff challenger.
If Lincoln defects and joins the Republicans in voting no (as she has done on a number of amendments), she will do a lot to cement her chances to remain a senator, but will open a wound in the Democratic Party. A domino effect will likely set in.
Her Arkansas colleague, Democrat Mark Pryor, will feel exposed by her defection and will probably consider voting no as well. It will be very hard for the son of moderate David Pryor to explain why Lincoln jumped ship but he chose to stay on board.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, encouraged by Lincoln’s vote, will probably vote no as well. These negative votes will bring huge pressure on Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat. Nor can the president count on the support of Joe Lieberman (I) of Connecticut, who has warned that, despite his basic support for the concept of the bill, it would be hard for him to back it given the current economic and fiscal crisis.
Once Obama’s plan fails to attract 60 votes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will fall back on reconciliation as a strategy and hope for 50 votes. But if the Democrats pass the bill with 50 votes, it will set a precedent they may come to rue. It would basically eliminate the filibuster as a parliamentary tactic and would condemn any future minority party (Democrats in 2011?) to the same irrelevance as afflicts their House colleagues. To be in the minority in a chamber run by a bare majority is not a fun task.
However, if Lincoln votes yes, it will send a signal to all moderates that even the most endangered of their species is willing to risk backing the program and will do a great deal to shore up the president’s defenses.
All this means that if the elderly citizens of Arkansas and Maine — and their families — want to avoid the evisceration of the Medicare program contemplated in the Baucus/Obama bill, they had better get busy. They need to deluge both senators with urgent pleas to vote against the $500 billion cut in the Medicare program. Neither senator can afford to alienate her elderly constituents, but what do they expect when they vote to take the hatchet to Medicare?
Newt Gingrich found out that cutting Medicare is a ticket to political oblivion. Barack Obama will learn the same lesson. The question is: Will Olympia Snowe and Blanche Lincoln join him?
October 6th, 2009 at 9:36 am
I will NOT be buying from any of these companies… Best Buy , in particular, was going to be getting a hefty amount of my disposable income this Christmas… not anymore.
October 5th, 2009 at 7:11 am
The Radical Left Wing Liberals have bullied a number of corporations to pull their ads from the Glenn Beck Show They are:
Applebee’s, Bank of America, Bell and Howell, DirectTV, AT&T, Campbell Soup, Lowe’s, General Mills, Kraft, Sprint, RadioShack, CVS, State Farm Insurance, Procter and Gamble, Regions Financial, Wal-Mart, Sargento, GEICO, SC Johnson, Progressive Insurance, Binder and Binder, Capital One, the Dannon Company, Discover, Jordan McKenna Counseling Network, HSBC, ICAN Benefit Group Insurance, Infiniti, Mercedes-Benz, Jelmar (manufacturer of CLR All-Purpose Cleaner), Simplex Health Care (creator of the Diabetes Health Care club), and Best Buy.
Money talks. I’m writing the CEOs of every company and telling them I’m spreading the word about their decision to “choose political sides” and bend to the will of the Radical Left. I hope hundreds or thousands more people will do the same.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
If you can’t negotiate the site of the Olympics for God’s sake how are you going to negotiate Iran’s nuclear ambitions..
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:45 pm
“Religion is the opiate of the masses.” – Karl Marx
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Wasn’t it a priciple of communism that religion is for the weak of mind? Anybody remember this?
September 26th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I really fear that all the common sense presented in the article above is not figuring into the equation. I believe health insurance reform or what ever they’re calling it today is really about controlling the personal lives of the American people.
This kind of control will mean the govt. can mandate what we eat, what kind of cars we drive, what sort of activities and hobbies we engage in, what sort of traveling we do, what kind of work we do…anything that can affect our health and thus the cost of health care in the nation. And here’s something really scary. There is a movement afoot to call religious belief mental illness. Where is that going to lead?
This just can’t happen.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Our president got up before the United Nations and apologized for America again. Wish he’d stop apologizing for me. My tax dollars have gone to feeding and housing people who have been affected by floods, earthquakes, tsunamis and famines. I have nothing for which to apologize.
He needs to shut up.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Neither H.R. 3200 nor the Baucus bill from the Senate seem to be garnerning enough support for passage. That is a good thing in my view. My hope is that our elected leaders recognize the fact that the American people have engaged on the health care issue. I believe those leaders will reach a compromise that will make common sense, will make a major dent in solving the problem and is fiscally responsible.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Never have I seen a situation evolve so quickly and dramatically. New bills are flying from every direction. Diversionary tactics in the form of accusations of racial prejudice by a former President, allegations of Acorn abuse of funds, from both sides of the aisle, threaten to take our eyes off the real discussion that needs to occur. There appears to be no more mainstream media…there is instead a left media and a right media. Never in our boomer lifetimes has there been a greater need for each of us to be individually involved, aware, and vocal.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Whoa… fuzzy math from the administration. Looks like they all must have gone to HARVARD !
How aboiut the other “clunker”, the health care bill. last night, even though it wasn’t polite… it WAS the truth, when the congressman told the president that he was lying. Well the reason he shouted that is because… well, the prez was lying. Again, fuzzy math. But the real facts don’t lie… but I’m afraid our Dear Leader did … and continues to do so.
So, as Obama is restructuring the government to look more like the Russia, with all his czars… maybe its best that Congress have more give and take like they do in Great Britain… have you ever seen how they go after the PM? That’s all that happened last night. And with all of the hate-filled and awful comments railed agaist Pres. Bush, these people are getting their own medicine thrown back at them…. well maybe they won’t if health reform goes thru!
September 10th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
The following is going around on the net:
Clunker math…
I guess I must be on the wrong page on this “clunker” stuff…
A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline. A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that’s 224 million gallons per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil…
5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day’s US consumption. And 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75 per bbl.
So, we all just spent $3 billion…to save $350 million.
Hmmmmmmmmm. How good a deal was that?
But, I’m thinking that they’ll probably do a great job with health care, though!
September 8th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I have had one health care provider tell me that if the bill passes, he will most likely close up shop. As a small business, the “contribution” which would be required if he opted out would make it impossible to keep his small private practice afloat. My bet is that he’s not the only small practice owner who is having the same thoughts. Many small practice health care providers will also be over the magic “250,000″ income level. What most people don’t realize is that these small health care practice owners pay themselves last. That 250,000 does not represent their personal income. Of course, the result would be several people then out of work who may be forced into the government system. The domino effect of this bill will be tantemount to a tsunami of small businesses failing and people left without coverage.
The govt. bankrupt social security, the postal service, Amtrak and screwed up the so called bailout. Car dealerships are screaming because their cash for clunkers money hasn’t come to them. How many chances do they get with our money?
September 8th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Where to start???? First, compliments to the person who did the digesting of all of this. We have to use caution about criticizing our statesmen for not reading a bill that we ourselves have not read. Or should we have to do that? What a great discussion to have in a high school civics class…in a democracy do we all read the bill, and in a republic do we expect others to read it for us and then represent our views?
Then on to the meat of the thing. I do believe that this bill is exemplary of what is happening in this administration. We used to call it a little white lie, or bending the truth, or as grownups, we attempt to discern between the sins of commission and the sins of omission. boy I wish this thing had spell check. Anyway, they say you can keep your health care, and that you can continue to be covered by your employer. But look at the first point made in the article above. If anything changes in your coverage, it will no longer exist and you will be moved to the government plan. I would pose the question, how often does your health care plan change either from your employer or retirement system? My plan changes annually…based on whatever company and options give my system the best deal. The ability to broker different plan options each year is what keeps it affordable. ANY INSURANCE BROKERS OUT THERE? HOW ABOUT SOME DETAIL ON THIS PROCESS??? Most people aren’t even very familiar with the process. They just get the info in the mail each year, pick their plan, and sign up. It is not magic; those deals are available because deals are made.
Re coverage for illegals…I have heard one (legal) hispanic advocate say that these are not “illegals”…they are “undocumented”…puuulllleeeeeaaaaaseeee. I think I’ll use that line the next time I get a speeding ticket. I support enough citizens who are out of work, genuinely making an effort, and just need some help. Then I support citizens who make babies to get more money. Please don’t tell me I have to support illegals. Admittedly, it is costly to treat these persons in emergency rooms when a clinic would do, but how about we just build some clinics and save a few trillion dollars.
How interesting that health care and taxes are now addressed in the same bill.
“Timely contribution to the Healthcare Exchange” for each employee…this from the administration who said the middle class would not pay one extra penny of tax. You won’t have to….they are going to take it from your employer. Wonder where he will get it?
Re Quality Measures: Any licensed healthcare facility is already subject to quality measures; you must meet certain quality measures in order to obtain and retain a license, and to access Medicaid funds for treatment provided. Most hospitals subject voluntarily to additional quality measures by seeking accreditation by one of a number of independent quality corporations that are nationally recognized. The Conyers bill appears to put quality checks into the hands of the government as well. Independent quality agencies push independent providers to the highest degree of efficacy in terms of treatment, and do not accept borderline levels of quality. I fear that treatment will greatly suffer if government controls BOTH the treatment and the measure of the treatment quality.
And no one seems to be too upset about what this move will do to research and advances in medicine and medical technology. Yes, pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money. But they invest a lot in developing new drugs, and the same for medical equipment. You will not see this kind of advancement in medical developments in Europe or countries with socialized medicine because there is not the competition to drive it nor the money to fund it. If you are a Boomer, I challenge you to compare the size of a scar you got in surgery thirty or forty years ago to one you have gotten in the last 5 or ten years. Most now only require a few tiny incisions for insertion of laparoscopic (sp?) instruments. What further advances will we be giving up because there will no longer be the incentive to do it better?
September 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Hey, C’mon, y’all!
The President just wants to be sure we all have what is constitution is our rights. We all have the right to health care and we shouldn’t has to pay for it. I should get what a ricjh man gets, why they get it all.
It’s not fair. Healthcare should be free to everyone and thats what this greta prez is trying to do. Thats why he got elected in the greatest landslide ever.
Don’ t you care about your fellow man?
September 5th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
As I think I may have stated sometime back, just reading the synopsis of the health bill article above, makes me realize all the more, that any bill passed by Congress should be no longer that 5 letterhead-sized pages.
We are a nation of laws, but we must be able to understand those laws.
September 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Thanks to the person who posted the links and excerpts of the bill. I have invested a significant amount of time trying to understand key aspects of this whole issue. I have tried to keep an open mind
and sincerely want our country to solve the problems with the existing system. I am becoming increasingly convinced that we are about to make the situation a lot worse and not better.
I have listened to President Obama and Representative Yarmuth both say “If you like your current insurance, you can keep it”. I believe that is an unintentionally misleading assertion. Many employers will save money by dropping health insurance as a benefit. From an employer’s standpoint, the empolyer will be better off paying the penalty. Employees will have no practical option other than pick a policy from the Exchange..probably the “public option”.
The house bill and both bills being discussed in the Senate are no more than Trojan horses,,,,stepping stones.. to a federal govenment controlled,,, single payer system. Our leaders should have the guts to say just that.
One other thing. Understand that I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I want all of our Presidents, Democrat or Republican. to succeed. I want all of our Presidents to do what they truly believe is in the best interest of our country,,, not in their personal interest or their parties interest.
Should President Obama sign a health care bill passed solely along party lines,
he will create a backlash among moderates of both parties. Moderates who think that cramming
partisian legislation down the the throats of millions of citizens is simply wrong. He will sow the seeds
of a movement to defeat Democrats in the next election. The silent majority is awakening and do not
like what they are seeing.
September 4th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
(3) Contribution In Lieu Of Coverage- …if an employee declines such offer but otherwise obtains coverage in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (other than by reason of being covered by family coverage as a spouse or dependent of the primary insured), the employer shall make a timely contribution to the Health Insurance Exchange with respect to each such employee in accordance with section 313.”
Isn’t a contribution voluntary by definition? This is confusing. It’s all confusing.
September 4th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Well, no company employing workers can do it on $250K or less in revenues. So, basically except for some home based businesses that don’t employ anyone, everyone will be ensnared in the trap.
Looks like this “government-run option is comotose— but never will be dead. Eventually, this will come back again and again. Cooperatives are just another name for government -run… just dressed up a bit differently.
Health care needs to be:
1. Affordable for anyone wanting to purchase it
2. Portable
3. Able to be purchased across state lines
These are the solutions. Period.
We don’t need to redistribute wealth in the guise of healthcare reform or pay for those who refuse to pay for it or those whose lifestyles have made them a poor risk.
To quote a great American philosopher: GET REAL!
September 4th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Bottom line for me is that this is a foot I don’t want in my door. A big government boot. Once the govt. gets its paws this far into the health car cookie jar, it’s not coming out. We all know how they’ve robbed the social security system. Why would this be any different? $10,000 commodes in the military budget. Why would this be any different?
On top of that, the govt. will start dictating us on lifestyle issues. They could threaten to withhold care in certain cirumstances or only offer options we don’t want.
don’t think it’s happening though. I don’t think Obama’s got the votes in the senate.
September 4th, 2009 at 9:38 am
“Requires employers to offer health benefits coverage to employees and make specified contributions towards such coverage or make contributions to the Exchange for employees obtaining coverage through the Exchange. Exempts businesses with payrolls below $250,000 from such requirement.’
Even with the exemption, this is going to be a heavy burden on small businesses. Those small business making over $250,000 will have no choice but to lay off workers in order to be able to provide insurance for the ones they retain. Those who are laid off will land in the government run system, increasing the burden on the tax payer.
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Yes, I DID receive an email notiice stating that the Oldham County School District was recommending the kids watch Obama next week, but because of parent concerns, the kids could “opt out” . They didn’t have to even give me that option… my two kids would have “opted out” anyway. The guts of these people.
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:38 am
I’d be sending a note to the teacher either asking that my child be allowed to opt out or that I be allowed to come into the classroom during the presentation. Too much opportunity for the president to politicize this event…use it to forward his agenda. I wouldn’t want my offspring to come home a little goose-stepping Brown Shirt.
There’s no question the hue and cry that would have swept this land…and particularly the media…had Bush tried to pull a stunt like this.
And by the way, every parent and grand-parent should take a look at textbooks and lesson plans. Make sure your children aren’t being taught revisionist history or being socialized in a way that are against your religious or moral standards and beliefs. It is often necessary to sit your children down and explain to them that some of what they are being taught is wrong.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
O.K. so what do we think about Obama speaking to our children next week? How would we feel if it were President Bush speaking to them? Not sure about this. At our little school we have to send a note home if we’d like to watch “Winnie the Pooh’s Un-Valentine” for pete’s sake! Do the parents have any say in whether their children have to listen to what the Prez has to say? I understand it’s a “Kennedy-esque” ask not what your country can do for you type of thing…hey, maybe all the Kennedy boys aren’t dead after all. The new one just looks a little different. Must be because he’s Hawaian…
September 1st, 2009 at 7:49 am
Well, I’m sure Ted would have tried to change the law to suit his needs. He was always apparently above the law. Talk about the poster boy for term limits!! May Mary Jo’s soul finally rest in peace.
Here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned. It is obvious that this country doesn’t want the health care bill as written. There’s no way the Obama administration doesn’t know that. They do their own polling. The big question for me is will they pass it REGARDLESS. If they pull the 51 vote stunt…then we have a whole new ball game. We have a government going against the wishes of a supposedly free people. That’s a very very scary scenario.
Anyone know the count-down to election day 2010?
August 31st, 2009 at 10:37 am
I agree with Topper… Ted is dead, and hopefully this government takeover of healthcare.
Had Kennedy had the government run healthcare now being proposed, he wouldn’t have lived the nearly year and one-half since being diagnosed with a brain tumor. He would have been denied treatments such as the surgery he underwent, radiation and chemo, as he was 77 years old and had inoperable cancer. He would heve been told to “take some pills” to relieve the pain and would heve been dead in two months.
Think about that.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:26 am
I’m hearing all this drib about passing health care for “Ted Kennedy”.. How about listening to the more than 50% of Americans that do not want the healthcare proposals now on the table?… how about NOT passing health care for “the people of this country”?
August 21st, 2009 at 7:49 am
Good point. In option #5, I would also like to see included in this discussion what the AARP stand to gain through the passage of the current healthcare reform bill. They do sell insurance, and I believe may stand to make significant earnings if the 1000+ page bill passes. For a fair outline, since we are laying it out in simple terms, we need to have a full understanding of what all parties stand to gain or lose.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Perhaps it is time to take the health care reform (or is it health insurance reform?) discusson in a different direction. Has anyone seen a website or know of a nonpartisian entity that has published a document, written in plain English, that clearly:
1. Describes all the siginficant problems with the health care system we are trying to solve.
2. Outlines the possible solutions along with pros, cons, costs and benefits, long term impact on the
impact on the country and on each major stakeholder group.
Option #1 – Do nothing. Status quo.
Option #2 – Single payer system
Option #3 – Obama principles and House Bill 3200.
Option #4 – Whatever plan the Senate puts forth.
Option #5 – Current system with changes already agreed to by the insurance cos., the hospitals, the
American Medical Associaton and the drug companies. Perhaps include a few ideas
mentioned by the CEO of Whole Foods.
Seems to me that the both houses of Congress skipped the step of clearly outlining major policy options but went straight to the writing of 1000+ page plus bills.
The phrase,,,,,READY….FIRE….AIM seems to describe the current approach.
August 20th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Note to users: In regard to Elkhorn’s observation that RayJ1948’s comments appear to have been lost–this is correct. Some comments were lost in a temporary website outage, which has been remedied. We regret the inconvenience, and encourage you to repost your comments.
We also wish to take the opportunity to remind you that you are welcome to submit articles for publication on the article section at the top of the page. You may request that they be posted with or without identification, and they may also be posted under your boomer-ville user name.
Email any comments you wish posted to articles@boomer-ville.com Please note that this is an email address, not a link.
Thank you for your continued interest in expressing substantive comments about topics of interest to the baby boomer generation.
Sincerely,
boomer-ville.com admin
August 19th, 2009 at 6:52 am
RayJ1948 and others – seems your posts from a couple of days ago were lost in a system problem.
could you repost your comments?
August 16th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Here’s the best article I’ve seen on this issue thusfar.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidRStokes/2009/08/16/health_care_-_out_of_pockets
August 15th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
And isn’t the reason everything is so expensive because there are so many people who are paying nothing at all?
I mean, have you been to any emergency room lately? You’ve got somebody with chest pain, two or three Hispanic families with kids with an ear ache or runny nose and a homeless drug addict who fell down and cut his head.
Who do you think is paying all those bills?
The “chest pain” who is getting charged $25.00 for an aspirin and won’t get out of there for less than $6,000…even if they decide it’s just acid reflux. Believe me…been there, done that!
I think a lot of the anger we’re seeing in the Townhall meetings is pent-up anger. Hard-working people are sick and tired of being responsible for every Tom, Dick and Diego who does not pay his own way…whether it’s through bad luck or laziness…the result is the same.
So, what Obamacare is doing is setting up a system whereby the “workers” will pay for the “non-workers” and it will be government approved.
John Gault anyone?
August 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Time to jump in…maybe I’m missing something, or maybe I just don’t understand, but with all of this, aren’t we just putting band-aid after band-aid on the real problem, which is the cost of the actual healthcare ? We just keep trying to come up with ways of paying for it when the real problem is that it costs $150 just to walk into to the doctor’s office, a couple of thousand for any kind of major work on a single tooth, $100 or more for a single prescription. I know research is costly, but gimme a break!!
August 15th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Lois Lane – You make a very astute observation. Your comment made me go back and read major portions of the HB3200 again. There are 2 other main bills and 5 others that are not getting any traction but HB3200 seems to be the one that President Obama is talking about. Here is my latest rambling:
Having watched three of the town hall meetings, including both of President’s Obama’s sessions, I continue to have 2 basic questions go unanswered. I have read major parts of house bill (HB) 3200. My questions:
1. How does HB 3200 affect me?
2. Is HB 3200 an effective solution for our country?
My understanding, which could be dead wrong, will provide employers with an annual payroll of over $500,000? to either provide health insurance or to pay 8% of payroll to the new Health Exchange. Think about that from an employers standpoint. Most employers will pay the 8% and call it a day. For many employers, 8% will be a bargain.
This bill is a strong economic incentive for employers to drop coverage. Employees will have no other practical choice than to get a policy thru the new Health Exchange. My conclusion, and again I could be dead wrong, but employees will end up paying a much larger portion of their health insurance premium.
If one does the math, and again I could be dead wrong on this, any employer with average pay of under $100,000 will have a strong economic incentive NOT to offer health insurance to their employees.
Here is an example. Let’s say an employer has 100 employees with average pay of $50,000. Total payroll of $5,000,000. The 8% option will cost the employer $400,000 per year.
Let’s assume that today the employee group has 50 single people and 50 married people. Say that the employer is paying 2/3 of everyone’s premium. Today, the employer is paying about $600,000 per year, the employees about $300,000.
By dropping coverage and paying the 8%, the employer saves $200,000 per year. The employee portion will have to increase to $500,000.
For someone with family coverage, the total premium today is about $1,200. Employer portion is $800 ; employee portion $400. If my understanding is correct, the new bill will mean switching coverage and the employee portion increasing from $400 to $600. That is an unintended consequence and a very bad result.
I am deeply concerned that the powers that be have not done the basic math of what they are proposing. I continue to search for accurate answers to my 2 basic questions. If anyone has a better grasp of this or knows an accuarate source of information, I would appreciate some direction.
August 14th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Perhaps the focus has shifted onto the raucous town hall meetings to take that focus off the health care bill itself. In the last few days, some individuals have taken the bill itself into the town hall meetings, read sections and asked specific questions pertaining to the bill. That’s the way to do it. In some cases, it seems that the constituents are better informed than the politicians.
Our politicians live in a very insulated bubble in Washington. This August recess has been a real wake-up call…not just about this issue, but regarding the ability of the general public to be informed about the issues. The new media allows us to access information in ways we’ve never been able to before. We are no longer willing to take the word of the media…we want to see it and hear it for ourselves. It has become more difficult for politicians to lie, evade and spin, because we can throw their words back at them.
Sometimes I miss the simplicity of Huntley/Brinkley and Cronkite. But, I wonder at our…my and my parents’ willingness to take them at their word for all those years. The news was the news…and we assumed it was the truth. I don’t ever remember wondering if what they were reporting was the truth.
I like this new accountability that is being forced upon Washington. I think these Townhall meetings may be a period of adjustment in relation to the new media…for us, for the old-fashioned media and for Washington.
August 14th, 2009 at 6:18 am
I find it amazing and a bit disappointing how fast the national debate on health care has disintegrated into town hall shouting matches. Just over 2 weeks ago, there seemed to be a vigorous, yet respectful,
sincere debate occuring. Just look at some of the posts on Bommer-ville. For example, I wrote:
“What I do know is that we as a country have got to deal with this and soon. The status quo makes no sense. I just hope that common sense and a sense of purpose for the common good will prevail.”
Now, the national media does a feature story on how the spin machines of the far left and far right are
working full time to destroy the other side for short term poliical advantage…..advantages that having nothing to do with solving the health care problem. The spin machines are out of control.
Here we are fighting wars on multiple fronts with our soldiers dying every day and some our fellow citizens having nothing better to do than purposely spread misinformation and myths.
We must solve this problem. The current system is not working for millions. The current system is working for the majority for now. (I have very good employer provided health insurance and very good access to the system.) But, even for the majority (including people like me), the current system is on an unsustainable path…cost is rising too much too fast. Something has to change.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
The White House must put any communications, electronic or otherwise, into the records due to archive regulations. Anything you send to the White House is recorded or saved in some fashion. Makes me think twice.
I once heard a congressman say that the communications that were most meaningful to him were the hand-written letters from constituents with the jelly stains on them. He knew someone had taken the time to sit down at the kitchen table and write him.
I think there will always be a place for the hand-written letter.
August 10th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I think you might be getting a little paranoid. The administration is just responding to the fact that we are now electronic communicators. Why would you not use the same channels for communicating as the people whom you are trying to reach?
August 10th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Interesting thought…I may invest in a stationery company, as letter writing may be making a comeback. I suppose if we use public forums for communication, such as any Internet blog, facebook, or Twitter, we present the opportunity for outsiders to listen in. But I was somewhat concerned to hear that Twitter was being monitored (by a segment within the military, I believe) to determine reaction to the ill-planned New York Air Force One flyover photo op and how the Administration should respond to it. I then began to wonder, what way do we have to communicate without being monitored? These many electronic media provide fast and efficient ways to communicate, but what have we sacrificed?
August 8th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Politicians are really in a bind these days. With the information out there for all to see, they can’t pull the wool over our eyes anymore. It’s interesting to see the deer in the headlights looks on their faces at these town hall meetings. They don’t know what’s hit them. What’s hit them is an informed constituency. They live such insulated lives in Washington, then come home to reality hitting them in the face.
They have to be pretty worried about the mid-term elections already. I think it’s gonna be a massacre.
August 7th, 2009 at 8:32 am
It would be so easy for someone to post the entire bill on the net.
Is it out there somewhere? If not, maybe some enterprising politician should post it.
In fact, maybe they ALL should be posted.
Bet that would shake some people up.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
I would find it difficult to separate the who from the what.
No one would disagree that it is in our best interest to know what the facts of the bill actually are. The best way to ensure we have the facts about the bill would be to educate the public on the bill. I do not believe this can be accomplished if, in fact, members of Congress have not read the bill.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I dropped a note to “fishy” too. I told them that turning in dissenters sounds like Nazi Germany to me. Isn’t that how it worked? What’s left? Political officers in our organizations, offices and churches? You know about political officers. They were the people whose assignment it was to turn in dissenters and to make sure no one spoke against the government.
The only way to achieve utopia is to give up our freedoms. I’d rather live in an imperfect society than have all my needs met at the cost of my freedom. I think that’s what people are beginning to understanding
I hope the Sleeping Giant is finally awakening.
flag@whitehouse.org
August 6th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
To Conjos:
Right on! Baby boomers compose a rather large voting block, wouldn’t you say? I would be more than glad to give this bill a fair shot, if they would give it a fair shot. What do I mean? I mean there may be some parts of this 1,000+ bill that are worth discussion, such as addressing pre-existing conditions. But how will they know if they don’t take the time to read it? If it’s such a great bill, why the rush?
Re the flag@whitehouse.gov–I feel like I went to bed and woke up on page 263 of a George Orwell novel. Except it’s not 1984, it’s 1989. Meet me at Tiananmen Square. We’ll have coffee. (Is this too overstated? Oh, no, wait, this is the United States and I have freedom of speech…this week, anyway.)
August 6th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I was so aggravated when I heard about the email for ratting on friends and family that I decided to send an email myself and let them know exactly what I thought. Following is the email I sent to flag@whitehouse.gov: “I would suggest that the dems wake up and realize that all prudent Americans; democrats, republicans and independents alike are fed up with the lies and b.s. that is coming out of Washington D.C. lest they find themselves standing in the unemployment lines come 2010 and 2012. Unless you guys decide to cancel elections because of some mythical catastrophe that has befallen our nation. Wise up!!! Americans are not as stupid as you assume them to be. I am a college educated baby boomer. I can read and write. I have excellent oral and written communication skills and can see through all the bull coming out of Washington”
By the way, if this health care plan is so great why don’t the politicians want it for themselves and their families? AND IF this so called health care reform is so wonderful why do you have to jam it down our throats? What’s the rush?
August 5th, 2009 at 11:36 am
LOL…hey Elkhorn…I love irony!
I will say, however, the man’s got some great arms…particularly in that swimmin’-down-the-river-shot.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:35 am
Does anyone else see the irony in Fully Figured noticing Putin’s man bXXbs? Funny.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I’m gonna guess that we won’t hear the Russian press talking about the sun glistening on Putin’s pectorals. Wonder if Chris Matthews is feeling another chill run up his thigh???
August 4th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
To Fully Figured:
Medicare? What Medicare? Are you not aware that the healthcare reform bill diverts money AWAY from Medicare that was originally dedicated to it? And why, you may ask? Because old people won’t be needing it. They will not be getting as much health care, so the bill reduces the funding for it. Read the writing on the wall.
August 4th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Big red headline on drudge…”Russian Submarines Patrolling Off East Coast.
Duh!
By the way, would someone please tell Putin he has man boobs?
August 4th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
What’s worrisome is that there doesn’t seem to be anything that can be done about this.
We may be past the tipping point. There may be more people perfectly happy to depend on the government cradle to grave than there are people who are not willing to give up their independence for security.
When I was growing up, being on the dole was considered somewhat shamefull. My parents called it “being in the poor house.” You didn’t want to be in the poor house, so you took care to save your money and live frugally. Actually, there really was something called a Poor Farm. It was where people went when they fell on hard times. At the farm, they would work to earn their keep, raise food for all the tenants and shared in the chores until they got back on their feet again. And that certainly was the goal…to get back on their feet. Being a ward of the state was not considered a life-style. It was temporary and lasted only until one got a job that earned a living wage…or two jobs, or three…whatever it took. People had pride. And they understood that living off the government meant you were living off your friends and neighbors. Anyone worth his salt would do all he could to avoid that situation.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
OLD IS OLDER THAN ME…..RIGHT?
This is chilling. This is like something out of a novel. I can’t believe it.
So, what is the criteria? Usefulness? Productiveness? I mean, Medicare is a huge burden on this country. Maybe it would be better to sort of “quietly get rid” of that burden. Then, of course, there are all the people with medical conditions and mental conditions. They’re a burden on the system.
What about criminals? Where does it end?
Life is either precious or it isn’t.
We live in strange times.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Hey! All you good folks in Loo An Vull !
Don’t drive through the deep water.
The Mayor – For – Life will throw your butt in jail!
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I made a mistake. My comments were meant for RayJ1948.
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Topper – I think you and I may be on the same wavelength. The idea I outlined would result in a dramtic reduction of income taxes and/or payroll taxes. A national sales tax would generate tax revenue from the underground economy or the “cash only” economy. These are people who are using
all of governments’ services, benefitting from all the U.S has to offer and not paying one red cent in taxes. That makes no sense. Many of these people earn a good living, pay no income taxes, and then
use emergercy rooms,,,one of the most expensive forms of medical care…and expect taxpayers who
receive a paycheck to give them a free ride. That needs to stop. We are all in this together. We need more people paying their fair share.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I take issue with Elkhorn, particularly about the national sales tax. If you want to bring the national economy to its knees, impose a sales tax. The best way to get the economy moving is to simply eliminate the federal income tax… and I would go even further… the payroll tax, as well.
Over and over again, it has been proven that cutting or eliminating taxes increases the flow of money into the government coffers. The most financially successful states are those that have no state income tax.
I venture that imposing a national sales tax would slow growth but that a major reduction or elimination of taxes would be so successful that I believe the deficit could be reduced in 1.5 -2 years and that unemployment would drop almost overnight to 2-3 %.
It was a democrat- JFK- who said ” A rising tide lifts all boats.” ( I think he said that in a compromising position to Marilyn…) and more money pumped into the system would generate a flow of cash this country has never seen before. Now , that’s reform…
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Health reform… well there are only 2 things that is necessary for health reform.
1. Affordable
2. Guaranteed coverage and portability
3. (I know I said 2 things)… But Everybody needs to be covered. I’ll explain
The first two are doable right now and is something most people agree with. Its the third that poses some questions. True, I don’t want the government telling me what I have to buy or not buy. But it Econ 101… those who have health insurance are paying for those who do not have coverage. Hospitals don’t turn people away.. but who do you think pays for their cost of coverage? THOSE WHO ALREADY HAVE COVERAGE. There is a cost built into your premium. So, everybody should be required to have coverage, even if for just catastrophic. If everyboby pays, it lowers the overall cost of health premiums.
OK , now I’m going to take a nap…
July 30th, 2009 at 11:17 am
The national sales tax is an idea whose time has come.
Unfortunately, I can’t see that happening…at least in this administration.
However, I wouldn’t be surprised to see an Independent presidential candidate float to the surface soon with that plan.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Cavalier – on the 50 million There are lots of figures being thrown around and I certainly don’t want to add to the confusion. It is very difficult to get solid information so I tend to cross check from multiple sources. In August 2008, the US Census Bureau put the number at 45.7 million. That is the number of people who had no health insurance at some point in 2007. That was before the economy started heading south and the unemployment rate headed towards 10%. Families USA…which is an advocacy group…but whose research seems credible…estimated that 86.7 million Americans were uninsured for some or all the two years of 2007-2008. An older study from another source estimated 26 million people were uninsured for the entire two years of 2004-2005. I don’t think anyone really knows.
What I do know is that we as a country have got to deal with this and soon. The status quo makes no sense. I just hope that common sense and a sense of purpose for the common good will prevail.
I also still believe in motherhood and apple pie. Used to believe in baseball but no longer…that is another topic for another day.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
50 million? That is higher than many estimates I have heard.
Totally agree that certain elements that need to be changed. It seems grossly unfair when someone who has insurance loses it because he/she becomes ill…isn’t that what it is for? And the use of pre-existing conditions to deny insurance would likely disqualify any of us who are in our Boomer era. Things simply wear out.
Perhaps the problem is that we are living too long thanks to our ability to access quality medical care, and thus that same medical care may no longer be available to us. We will, after all, be on the short list due to our age. By the way, thanks to the caving of the blue dog Dems, you might not need your Living Will anymore.
Point #1 is something I would like to see discussed in DC. Lowering taxes would put an immediate flow of money into the economy, if people believe it will remain low for a substantial period of time. Increasing sales tax would then draw it back for funding. Perhaps the best part of this concept is that it puts the power back in the hands of the people. They choose how and where to spend their money, not the government. I believe they would choose wisely. This administration does not have the same trust in its citizens; they want to control the funds.
July 29th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Reforming the American health care system is just the type of situation I believe the founders had in mind when they crafted our democracy. A complex issue affecting us all. A complex issue that demands the very best of our elected representatives.
An issue where we the people must demand that our elected representatives place the country first and their own personal and political ambitions dead last.
Our health care system certainly needs some major changes. Yes, the health insurers need to change their ways. The abuses are well documented. This has to stop. But, these insurers and Medicare provide health coverage for about 270 million Americans.
Roughly 50 million of our fellow citizens do not have health insurance. They do have access to the health system but in a way that nobody thinks makes sense. Too many of the uninsured and underinsured are children.
There are roughly 5 to 10 illegal immigrants who we as a country have decided to provide health care for free. That may be the humane thing to do but not very smart from a financial standpoint.
The bills moving forward in the both houses of Congress solve many of the coverage and quality issues but at an added cost of $900 billion over 10 years. That works out to about $100 billion per year. That is not affordable or acceptable, in my view.
So what to do? Here is one set of ideas.
1. Institute a national sales tax of 4%. At the same time, lower income tax rates across the board equal to the amount raised by the sales tax. The end result is that the underground economy, estimated to be $2.5 trillion per year, finally gets taxed. That means everyone, including illegal immigrants, who spend money are contributing to the cost of a new health care system in which everyone is covered by health insurance. Puts us all in this together. A 4% tax, designated for health care, would result in about $100 billion a year of new revenue. That is just about the amount needed to get universal coverage in America.
2. Keep pressing for all the cost reductions and quality improvements outlined in the bills now under consideration. Those are vitally important.
3. Insist that our elected leaders dispense with any comments and tactics that are for short term political gain and having nothing to do with solving the problem.
July 26th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Sure it’s workable, but that’s not the point. The point is “control”. If the govt. controls our healthcare, they control everything…from the foods we eat to the cars we drive…not just the meds we take.
I heard some Canadian say the other day that he couldn’t take a ladder on a job site because it might cause him to fall and have an accident, thus creating an expense for the health care system.
Give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a mile.
My health is not the government’s business…nor is it its responsibility.
July 25th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
I heard two interesting estimates today.
First, the Big O is saying there are 45 million uninsured. Subtract the illegal aliens, and the people who could have insurance but opt out because they do not see it as a priority, and you end up with something over 20 million.
Second, it would cost a mere few billion to insure these folks, maybe with an electronic card system like what is used for welfare and food stamps. Then everyone else could stick with what they have. Certainly we still need some reforms, but nothing like what we are looking at, and at a much lower cost.
I think this is a workable idea.
July 25th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Hey, that’s a great piece from Dick Morris… Everyone should read to know whats going on.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
We won’t need doctors if we just run everything (and everyone) through a government algorithm to decide what to do about their ailments.
We need people to understand that there will be no other choice. If government offers health care, businesses will opt out of health care. Any business will tell you that the cost of benefits adds 25-30% more to what that employee actually costs the business, above and beyond salary, and a large chunk of that is health care. The long term plan, whether they admit it or not, is to put us all on government health care by running the others out of business.
Think your business would never do that? Take a look at all the businesses that are opting out of their 401K matches now, foregoing bonuses, and giving no COLA whatsoever. Aside from cutting people, the only thing left to cut is the health care expense.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Bin-Laden’s son killed.
Does not bode well for us.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Don’t know anything the government does better than the private sector. Except national defense.
What a nightmare if it gets its hands into our medical care.
90 percent of Americans have insurance already.
Why can’t they just leave well enough alone?
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
RHETORIC V. REALITY: HEALTH CARE BY ORWELL
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on July 23, 2009
Printer-Friendly Version
President Obama’s rhetoric last night summoned the memory of “1984,” George Orwell’s novel of a nightmarish future — where the slogan of the rulers is “War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.”
The president assures us that he will cut health-care spending…by adding $1 trillion to health-care spending.
He says that “health-care decisions will not be made by government”…while he sets up a new Federal Health Board to tell doctors what treatments they can offer and to whom and under what circumstances.
Obama told the media, “I will free doctors to make good health-care decisions”…by telling the physicians what to do.
When the president says he guarantees the “same coverage” to people who like their current health-insurance policies, he means that their current HMOs, insurers and doctors will be the ones to implement the protocols and instructions the government hands down to them — not that we’ll have our current freedom of decision-making.
When he blandly assures us that we will “stop paying for things that don’t make us healthier,” he really means that his Federal Health Board will overrule your doctor and stop him from using his own best judgment in your treatment.
The president will “get the politics out of health care” by putting it under government control.
Obama says that he will not “add to the deficit” to fund health care. But the bill reported out by Rep. Charlie Rangel’s Ways and Means Committee leaves $550 billion unfunded.
The president says that he’ll identify savings that will reduce the need for more taxes — even though the Congressional Budget Office refuses to say that his “savings” will actually work and warns that the bill will really be added to the deficit.
He repeatedly tells us that he’ll cut health-care spending. What he means is that he will cut doctors’ incomes and will turn down patients — particularly the elderly — when they seek medical care that his bureaucrats disapprove of.
And he ignores that cutting incomes in the medical field will reduce the number of doctors and force further rationing of care.
The president opines that he will replace the most “expensive care” with the “best care” by empowering government officials who have never met you to substitute their judgment for that of your doctor, who has examined you thoroughly.
When Obama laments that “14,000 people lose their insurance every day,” he is referring to the job losses that his own failed efforts to end the recession have permitted.
He warns that health-care costs are gobbling up money that employers should use to raise wages and worker pay — yet the plans he backs would require employers to pay 8 percent of their payroll as a tax or provide insurance to their workers.
The Obama plan highlights greater preventive care — but, at the same time, cuts medical incomes and so will cut the number of doctors who might provide it.
The stimulus package, in the Gospel According to Barack, was “designed” to work over the next two years. But at the time, he demanded immediate passage to “jump-start the economy” — something that clearly did not happen.
Medicare and Medicaid are “driving the deficit” even as he increased the amount of red ink by at least $800 billion in six months with little, if any, increase in the cost of either program.
He says he “expects” banks to repay their TARP money. In fact, they’re lining up around the block to do so — but the Treasury will only permit a handful of them to do so.
In summary, Obama’s health program will promote “lower cost and more choice” by increasing spending by $1 trillion, telling patients what care they’re permitted to have, and limiting their access to quality care.
Orwell’s heirs should sue for violation of copyright.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Hey, I’m tired of all the skinny blondes.
It’s like Barbie clones on all the networks. Where do they find all these girls anyway?
Are they cranking them out on some cloning farm or something?
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 am
We need more minority anchors on TV
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 am
i DON’T REMEMBER THOSE DUDES!
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
You can have ‘ole Uncle Walter. He was an a leftist liberal, a crank and became grumpier and more senile as time went on.
Give me Brit Hume.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:46 am
In hindsight, absolutely he showed his politics. But, there were so few choices back then. That’s what so great about the web. The truth is out there.
Case in point, the fed govt. is holding back on some key financial reports. There’s no longer any question of skewing the results…they’re going to be accessible to anyone with a laptop. They can try, and they do, to interpret the numbers in a positive light…but like I said, the truth is out there. That’s why Obama’s numbers are coming down.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Cronkite loved the space program. I remember him being openly emotional over the moon landing, and during an era when men really were not supposed to be emotional.
Do you think he showed his politics in his newscasting?
July 17th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
AND THAT’S THE WAY IT WAS.
Walter Cronkite has gone on to that big news room in the sky…and during this fortieth anniversary week of the moon landing. I can’t think of that week without thinking of his voice. What an interesting twist of fate that we will be hearing his voice and seeing those old films of him for the next several days. A fitting tribute if there ever was one.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
great website:
http://www.wechoosethemoon.org
July 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
We have watched journalism hit the skids. It’s a brave new world. Who watches the networks anymore? The newspaper is yesterday’s news. So, they’ve turned to pop culture rather than fact gathering, thus making themselves vulnerable to govt. takeover. Strange times.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
What amazes me is that about half of the article I read this morning about the President’s visit had to do with what designer Michelle was wearing. I read that Russia gave her a thumbs down…not enough glitz. Is this is same media that blasted the Republican party for giving Sarah Palin something to wear that didn’t have spit up on it? How about we report on something more significant like, uh, Korea aiming missiles at Hawaii, or the fact that we no longer have words in the English language to express the number of zeros in the national debt???
July 11th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Michelle looked like she was in mourning!
July 10th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Prez getting ready to meet with Pope.
The big news will be whether Michelle went sleeveless or not.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:20 am
OK…can we be done with Michael Jackson now? Let the man rest in peace.
My favorite memories of him are of his younger years. I had one of the first record albums (you know, those big black plastic disks with the grooves in them?). Michael was maybe 8 or 10 years old then. The music was upbeat and “easy to dance to” (thank you, Dick Clark).
It’s sad that it ended this way…but, not at all surprising. So many go like this.
Wish I still had that album…and something to play it on! I miss that little hissing sound that played through the speakers before the first song started.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Yes, the man is a piece of work, for sure.
June 27th, 2009 at 8:17 am
OMG…Gov. Sanford has disengaged his brain. His wife has really given him every opportunity to clean up his act. But, she’s also insisted he toe the line. Even so…his talliwagger led him back down to Argentina even after she found a love letter and confronted him with it. Does he not know how STUPID he looks?
By the way…why did he leave a love letter in with the financial files? Why did he keep it at all?
The man wanted to be caught. But, he didn’t want to stop what he was doing.
He wanted his wife’s permission to continue the adulterous behavior.
He’s an embarrassment. He needs to just go away.
June 15th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Jack Crowner…there’s a name I haven’t thought of in a long time.
How about Livingston Gilbert?
Dick Gilbert?
Randy Atcher
“Cactus” Tom Brooks
The weatherman who preceded Tom Wills????
The guy who did the sports?
June 15th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
And that jack crowner… what a hunk!
June 15th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Sometimes I long for Barney Arnold and the morning farm report.