My employer offers a plan where the company (not a third party insurance company) covers me. Will this still be possible in the future? Will this legislation affect my coverage?
1. Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not. 2. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS. 3. Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can’t afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums. 4. Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court. 5. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays. 6. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins. 7. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others. 8. Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market. 9. No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years. 10. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now. 10 Reasons to Kill the Senate Bill
They already are if they don't perform they get kicked out of office... and even if they did, everyone would have a different opinion of what is good or bad, maybe you like deadlock...
1. Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.
Citation needed. Yes, you must purchase insurance. No, it does not have to be private insurance; you may buy insurance through a non-profit health insurance co-op. Also, explain the 8% figure. Keith Olbermann just said that a family with an income of $54k a year may have to pay up to 17% of their income for insurance. Again, I demand citations. The bill as it is will force all insurance plans, by 2014, to limit their total annual cost-sharing (including deductible) to no more than $5000 for an individual (with a maximum deductible of $2000) and $10k for a family with a maximum deductible of $4k. Yes, that is in addition to the premium.
3. Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they canÂ’t afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.
Citations. The insurance will be absolutely no worse than what is available now, and most will be better because of rebates and the like. Further, where does this $12k out-of-pocket figure come from? See my figures above.
4. Massive restriction on a womanÂ’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
A valid criticism, but not enough to warrant defeat of the bill.
6. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
A blatant lie. There are many reforms which take effect immediately. No, the pre-existing condition clause won't take effect until 2014, but within 90 days of passage of the bill, those with pre-existing conditions who also lack coverage will be placed in a high-risk pool where they will be granted access to affordable, high-quality insurance. Their options will be limited until 2014, when no insurance policy will be allowed to discriminated based on a pre-existing condition.
7. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.
And we currently allow them to charge far more than that based on age. This is a limitation on a current practice.
10. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.
And the provisions of the bill will reign in rising costs by 2014. This is how much costs will rise without passage of the bill.
EDIT: I'm really, really, really starting to think that I'm one of the only people who's actually read any of this legislation and its amendments. No, it's not perfect. Yes, it could do a lot more. However, what it does currently, public option or not, 2014 or not, is good progress that will make health care more affordable for many, many people. There are numbers that dictate as much.
What we need to do is pass this bill and keep its imperfections in the spotlight, so that we can work on fixing them. It's a lot easier to argue for small amendments to extant legislation than it is to offer up large and sweeping changes.
Oh yeah, it's my favorite. Wow, sorry for putting my fingers to keys.
That actually wasn't meant to be an attack, I was saying the current deadlock might be what someone likes, but someone else likes it when congress moves to the left and someone else to the right, how would you pay a congressman for their performance if everyone disaggree's what a good performance is? (sorry if that sounded like an attack)
Any person can get an exemption from the individual mandate if the cost of premiums exceeds 8% of his or her income. A properly working universal health care system does not have a “hardship” exemption. Instead of the government saying, “we will not force you to buy health insurance anymore because we let the insurance companies make it too expensive for you,” the proper response is for the government to say, “If your insurance ever starts to get too expensive, we will make sure you can afford it.” It is the height of irony that the hardship waiver is for people whose premiums exceed 8% of their income, but for people making between 300-400% of FPL, the tax credits they get will only be sufficient to make the silver plan cost 9.8% of their income. One part of the bill is saying that spending 8% of your income on insurance is a hardship, and another part of the bill is only giving people enough affordability tax credits to make insurance cost 9.8% of their income. The “silver level” plans have a very low actuarial value 70%, and people would have the option of choosing the super-junk 60% actuarial value “bronze level” plans. So, the people between 300% and 400% FPL might technically have an option that will just barely cost just under 8% of their income, but it will be for nearly worthless junk insurance.
So he's saying that because you can only get a waiver if your premium exceeds 8% of your income, your premium will cost at least 8% of your income. That's a terribly fallacious argument. He also does not provide further citation for his cost analysis of the silver level plans, so the citation trail ends. He also glosses over the fact that if you have better insurance, you don't have to do anything. At all. If you currently have no insurance, getting the bronze level provides you with something, and if it's too expensive, you can get the requirement waived or get enough credits to make it affordable.
So, no, he is not providing adequate citation, and what he does cite doesn't support his argument when you read it. These are warped arguments based on fear-mongering, plain and simple.
I know, I'm shocked. Using FUD to defeat a bill? The debacle in this health care reform business is not the bill itself, but rather the public understanding of the reform. There's so much goddamn noise coming from so many different directions that the public has no idea what's going on, and I can't rightly blame people for not wanting to wade through 2100 pages of legislation and hundreds of pages of amendments to figure out just what the fuck is going on. We rely on news organizations and other avenues to interpret this information for us, but the problem is that they wind up spinning the interpretation for their own purposes.
My issue here is that the FUD is almost trivially defeated when you actually read the relevant sections of the bill. The only really valid arguments you can make are that the bill doesn't do enough, but to argue that it actually causes harm and makes your insurance more expensive is absolutely idiotic.
Could the public option ever have been passed by the senate (Short answer: No)A lot of people are attempting to pin the blame of a lack of a public option on President Obama, but in reality there probably wasn't even 55 votes for the public option let alone 60. The senate would have been more likely to kill the bill than vote for one with a public option and in a lot of ways the white house not playing up the option or the buy in, was playing a conservative game to make sure it didn't crush hopes. I think the media and far left hopefulls did more to inflate a dream that they might have a public health insurance plan than anything. Sure, the president could say he would veto anything that came across is desk that did not have a public option, but at what cost. Would we not have any such health reform or would we still be debating this issue 3 years from now while not dealing with other pressing issues in the senate.
In my opinion, I figured it would be nice to have a public option but in no way am I in favor of destroying a bill that helps people get insurance that have been denied for things like "Pregnancy".
The primary end that the House and Senate debates on this have served for is is to destroy the very last, lingering optimism I had for ever seeing meaningful reform (on any major issue) enacted by the United States' federal government in my lifetime.
My personal options on any issue seem to be to either compromise to the point that no actual progress is made, or stonewall indefinitely to much the same effect. Short of my forthcoming 100% stonewall political party (still in progress: the tax issues and accounting obligations are enormous, especially when I don't have a lawyer to sort it all out), I am more and more inclined to give up entirely on federal matters: I have no direct way to affect the outcome, and my personal/economic power is far greater than my voting power.
The primary end that the House and Senate debates on this have served for is is to destroy the very last, lingering optimism I had for ever seeing meaningful reform (on any major issue) enacted by the United States' federal government in my lifetime.
My personal options on any issue seem to be to either compromise to the point that no actual progress is made, or stonewall indefinitely to much the same effect. Short of my forthcoming 100% stonewall political party (still in progress: the tax issues and accounting obligations are enormous, especially when I don't have a lawyer to sort it all out), I am more and more inclined to give up entirely on federal matters: I have no direct way to affect the outcome, and my personal/economic power is far greater than my voting power.
I'll have to admit that I am disheartened as well. Does that mean that we should just completely give up? Should we be content to just go along for the ride? Is there anything that can be done, on a personal level, short of moving to Europe? Is Europe any better?
I've recognized this for quite some time. The issue, however, is whether or not the Dems should have let a good bill go down in defeat (to expose those who blocked something good), or get sucked into the mud with an expensive bill that accomplishes little. I think the Dems should have taken a stand on this one. The result wouldn't have been much worse than what we have now.
Remember when the title of the thread (or maybe a related one) stated that I was wrong about the public option? How embarassing for the person that wrote that. Let this be a lesson. When it comes to politics, nobody on this forum has better intuition than myself. I think it's because I am not wedded to any political party. I'm sure I'll get some predictions wrong, but my batting average is unmatched. The sharing of my intuition is my Christmas gift to the forum this year. Wise men brought gifts at the very first Christmas, and it is in this tradition that I provide my gift.
I agree that Federal politics is depressing. Both parties are beholden to big business. I don't understand how intelligent people could fail to understand this.
Merry Christmas to you.No seriously. I was really thinking you were trying to change your attitude here, but that post up there was disgusting. It was so self-praising and snotty that it would look like you were joking to anyone who doesn't know you. The issue never is and never will be how right or wrong you are. People will doubt you next time just as much as they did this time, and you'll have little more to blame for your upset than your own arrogance.
Well, it's tough to discern when you've expressed the same sentiment non-ironically in the past.
A master of sarcasm weaves their sarcasm in such a way as to leave the listener (or reader) unsure as to whether or not the speaker (or writer) was being sarcastic.
Well, it's tough to discern when you've expressed the same sentiment non-ironically in the past.
A master of sarcasm weaves their sarcasm in such a way as to leave the listener (or reader) unsure as to whether or not the speaker (or writer) was being sarcastic.
Hardly. Sarcasm is useless unless there is an audience that understands the intent. Saying, "You don't understand the sarcasm in the horrible thing I just said" is a prime cop-out utilized by people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Riley, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter to try to deflect criticism from their outrageous statements.
In this case, it's pretty clear to everyone that Kilarney's first statement wasn't meant to be sarcastic at all and he's just trying to avoid loltsundere's harsh criticism because he doesn't want another dose of the pwning she dished out before. The two keys to understanding this are that Kilarney has made these statements non-sarcastically in the past, as pointed out by Pete, and he simply isn't that funny or talented enough to be succesfully sarcastic.
If, unlikely as it may seem, his statement was an attempt at sarcasm, it was a badly failed attempt.
Sadly, his cynicism on the subject was perfectly justified all along. Meaningful reform was the crazy outlier possibility that everyone hoped for, but no one expected.
Comments
1. Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.
2. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.
3. Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can’t afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.
4. Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
5. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.
6. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
7. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.
8. Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
9. No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.
10. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.
10 Reasons to Kill the Senate Bill
EDIT: I'm really, really, really starting to think that I'm one of the only people who's actually read any of this legislation and its amendments. No, it's not perfect. Yes, it could do a lot more. However, what it does currently, public option or not, 2014 or not, is good progress that will make health care more affordable for many, many people. There are numbers that dictate as much.
What we need to do is pass this bill and keep its imperfections in the spotlight, so that we can work on fixing them. It's a lot easier to argue for small amendments to extant legislation than it is to offer up large and sweeping changes.
We'll take his first point. Here is his citation for this point. I'll take his major point from that citation and reproduce it here. So he's saying that because you can only get a waiver if your premium exceeds 8% of your income, your premium will cost at least 8% of your income. That's a terribly fallacious argument. He also does not provide further citation for his cost analysis of the silver level plans, so the citation trail ends. He also glosses over the fact that if you have better insurance, you don't have to do anything. At all. If you currently have no insurance, getting the bronze level provides you with something, and if it's too expensive, you can get the requirement waived or get enough credits to make it affordable.
So, no, he is not providing adequate citation, and what he does cite doesn't support his argument when you read it. These are warped arguments based on fear-mongering, plain and simple.
My issue here is that the FUD is almost trivially defeated when you actually read the relevant sections of the bill. The only really valid arguments you can make are that the bill doesn't do enough, but to argue that it actually causes harm and makes your insurance more expensive is absolutely idiotic.
In my opinion, I figured it would be nice to have a public option but in no way am I in favor of destroying a bill that helps people get insurance that have been denied for things like "Pregnancy".
My personal options on any issue seem to be to either compromise to the point that no actual progress is made, or stonewall indefinitely to much the same effect. Short of my forthcoming 100% stonewall political party (still in progress: the tax issues and accounting obligations are enormous, especially when I don't have a lawyer to sort it all out), I am more and more inclined to give up entirely on federal matters: I have no direct way to affect the outcome, and my personal/economic power is far greater than my voting power.
Remember when the title of the thread (or maybe a related one) stated that I was wrong about the public option? How embarassing for the person that wrote that. Let this be a lesson. When it comes to politics, nobody on this forum has better intuition than myself. I think it's because I am not wedded to any political party. I'm sure I'll get some predictions wrong, but my batting average is unmatched. The sharing of my intuition is my Christmas gift to the forum this year. Wise men brought gifts at the very first Christmas, and it is in this tradition that I provide my gift.
I agree that Federal politics is depressing. Both parties are beholden to big business. I don't understand how intelligent people could fail to understand this.
Seconded. Get over yourself.
In this case, it's pretty clear to everyone that Kilarney's first statement wasn't meant to be sarcastic at all and he's just trying to avoid loltsundere's harsh criticism because he doesn't want another dose of the pwning she dished out before. The two keys to understanding this are that Kilarney has made these statements non-sarcastically in the past, as pointed out by Pete, and he simply isn't that funny or talented enough to be succesfully sarcastic.
If, unlikely as it may seem, his statement was an attempt at sarcasm, it was a badly failed attempt.