Healthcare reform passes House

[Guest American Woman]

Landmark health bill passes House on close vote

The Democratic-controlled House has narrowly passed landmark health care reform legislation, handing President Barack Obama a hard won victory on his signature domestic priority.

Ironically, this reform seems to anger both conservatives and liberals. I was never happy with Obama's plan for health care, and it was one of the major reasons I would not vote for him in the primaries. It'll be interesting to see where this leads when all is said and done, but I suspect there will be a lot of complaints.

Now I guess we just have to wait and see how the Senate votes.

Edited November 8, 2009 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

Why not explain what your problem was with Obama's plan ?

[Guest American Woman]

Why not explain what your problem was with Obama's plan ?

First and foremost, I resent anyone forcing me to buy something that there's no getting around. Some have compared it to mandatory vehicle insurance, but one can choose not to have a vehicle. So I object to mandatory insurance, especially since I will be at the mercy of the cost. To force someone to have insurance, and then fine them if they don't, is ludicrous; and I see the state forcing something like that as going over the line.

If people are going to have "forced coverage," then it should come out of our taxes same as Social Security, Education, etc.

[Guest American Woman]

deleted

Edited November 8, 2009 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

Ironically, this reform seems to anger both conservatives and liberals. I was never happy with Obama's plan for health care, and it was one of the major reasons I would not vote for him in the primaries. It'll be interesting to see where this leads when all is said and done, but I suspect there will be a lot of complaints.

I don't think anyone will be happy with the plan.

What alternatives do you think should have been considered?

[jdobbin]

If people are going to have "forced coverage," then it should come out of our taxes same as Social Security, Education, etc.

Think that would be regarded even more negatively, don't you think? That's communism! ha

[Shady]

There's so much wrong with the Dems healthcare reform plan, it's hard to even know where to start.

1) Their reform doesn't actually kick in until 2013, after Obama's up for re-election, Coincidence?

2) The cost of the plan. The tax increases start immediately, but the reform doesn't begin for another 3 years, which allows them to fudge the numbers of the actual cost of the plan.

3) You're forced to pay something like $15,000 for health insurance or face 5 years in prison.

4) It allows access to illegal aliens.

Good luck in 2010 Dems! You'll need it.

[Riverwind]

I fully support the idea of a government run medical insurance plan but this particular bill is a recipe for unintended consequences because it tries to hide the cost of coverage in payroll taxes. This will increase the cost of labour in the US and result in even more job losses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html

Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

If I was one of the 10% unemployeed in a the US I would rather have no health plan and a job than a health plan and no job. If this bill passes expect to see the unemployment rate in the US stay high for a long time.

Aside: many businesses have an operating profit which is less than 10% of sales. Wages and benefits are the largest cost for many labour intensive service businesses which means an 8% payroll tax would wipe out their profits unless wages come down. Healthcare funded by direct taxes would not leave employees with any less money once wage cuts are factored in but it would not create an incentive to employ fewer people.

[Guest American Woman]

There are things I don't understand about this plan:

President Barack Obama and top Democrats in Congress say they want to cover all Americans, yet the proposals would still leave millions of people not eligible for Medicare uninsured, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

So who are these "millions of people" uninsured? Would they be exempt from the requirement to purchase insurance?

Under the House proposal, about 18 million non-elderly people, including millions of illegal immigrants, would lack coverage, the CBO estimated. The Senate Finance Committee plan would leave about 25 million uninsured, a third of them illegal immigrants...

The illegal aliens I can understand, but I can't figure out who else would lack coverage.

From what I'm reading, I'll be surprised if this bill passes the Senate.

Edited to add link

Riverwind,

Seems as if some Democratic Senators are objecting to the small business requirement, too. I agree with you; I'd rather be without insurance than be unemployed. Which makes me wonder where the unemployed would get the money to purchase health care.

I too support a government run insurance plan if it's provided to everyone the same way Social Security is. I can just see if the answer to social security was to force people to save x number of dollars, and if they didn't, fine them.

Makes no sense to fine people who can't afford health insurance to begin with, and that goes for individuals and businesses.

Edited November 8, 2009 by American Woman

[Pliny]

Obama, Pelosi, Reid - they are most certainly not listening.

[Riverwind]

Seems as if some Democratic Senators are objecting to the small business requirement, too. I agree with you; I'd rather be without insurance than be unemployed. Which makes me wonder where the unemployed would get the money to purchase health care.

The 8% fine for all businesses. Small businesses with revenue under 500K are already exempt.

The money to pay for the unemployed comes from taxes on the employed. So people will see their taxes increase but they will not be able to directly blame it on the health care bill.

This bill could mean the end of most existing employer plans healthcare depending on the definition of a qualified plan. If the cost of providing a 'qualified plan' exceeds 8% of payroll then many employers will drop their plans and pay the tax. Employees may complain but in this economy most will have to suck it up.

This bill will also really hurt entrepreneurs because it forces them to pay for a gold plated health insurance plan when they would be better off using the cash to fund their businesses.

Of course the devil is in the detail. The requirements of the 'qualified plan' could be low enough that it has no effect on existing plans but once the legislation is in place you can bet that those requirements would increase over time as various interest groups lobby to have their treatments included.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

Riverwind,

I agree with everything you've said. This bill will end up affecting just about everyone in the long run, and I think it will negatively affect more than it positively affects. But time will tell, I guess, and if enough people are unhappy, s they say, nothing is written in stone.

I'm curious. As a Canadian, do you prefer your system, or would you prefer this?

[Riverwind]

I'm curious. As a Canadian, do you prefer your system, or would you prefer this?

The Canadian system is definitely better because it is paid for with sales/income taxes. This means health care reduces the cost of operating a business in Canada even if employees have lower after tax incomes. The auto workers unions have used this argument for years to extract higher wages and benefits.

The main problem with the Canadian system is the ban on private medicine. The government cannot be everything to everyone. People should be able to decide to purchase their own services if they disagree with a bureaucrat's definition of 'medically necessary'.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

The Canadian system is definitely better because it is paid for with sales/income taxes. This means health care reduces the cost of operating a business in Canada even if employees have lower after tax incomes. The auto workers unions have used this argument for years to extract higher wages and benefits.

I agree; I would have given the same answer, but not having lived with the system, I wanted the opinion of someone who has.

The main problem with the Canadian system is the ban on private medicine. The government cannot be everything to everyone. People should be able to decide to purchase their own services if they disagree with a bureaucrat's definition of 'medically necessary'.

Once again, I agree.

[punked]

I agree; I would have given the same answer, but not having lived with the system, I wanted the opinion of someone who has.

Once again, I agree.

Over the last 6 months there have been a lot of people on this board telling me it will never pass. I keep saying we will see, but right now we are one step closer.

[Oleg Bach]

It's just not in the American make up to actually worry about your fellow man and send the poorer neighbor a few bucks when he gets sick. That's what socialized medicine is all about. The whole idea goes against the social and economic Darwinism that this nation is built on. Survival of the fittest and if you get sick and are not rich and tough and supposedly of superiour human material then you are supposed to roll over and die...I guess they will find a way to drive the poor into the ground no matter what safety net is provided.

[Pliny]

It's just not in the American make up to actually worry about your fellow man and send the poorer neighbor a few bucks when he gets sick. That's what socialized medicine is all about. The whole idea goes against the social and economic Darwinism that this nation is built on. Survival of the fittest and if you get sick and are not rich and tough and supposedly of superiour human material then you are supposed to roll over and die...I guess they will find a way to drive the poor into the ground no matter what safety net is provided.

People, for the most part, are not naturally cruel, Oleg. If they have the means to support the poor they will. As Jason Goldberg said in "Liberal Fascism": "Sending tax dollars in to Washington does not fulfill your obligation to your fellow man." That seems to be the consensus under a socialistic system. The problem with the socialist system is that if the economic means to support an already devised system disappears then not only the poor suffer but those dependent upon the system for their well-being are adversely affected.

If the market is not subject to the boom and bust cycles created by government then there is a better chance that the economy will support the necessary institutions that provide charity to the poor. Either way the social safety net, private or public, is paid for out of the surplus of the economy - it can be supplied charitably out of the good-hearted nature of the citizens or taxed out of the economy by coercion. Personally, I think when economic times are bad; that coercion becomes oppressive to the average person.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Pliny

[Guest American Woman]

It's just not in the American make up to actually worry about your fellow man and send the poorer neighbor a few bucks when he gets sick.

You couldn't be more wrong. Americans look out for their neighbor, and fund-raisers for locals are pretty common and well-attended. Americans as individuals are very generous people.

Furthermore, the bill passed the House, so I don't know why your response would be a negative one if you approve of the legislation.

[Riverwind]

It's just not in the American make up to actually worry about your fellow man and send the poorer neighbor a few bucks when he gets sick.

Americans, like most other civilized people, are more than willing to help out their fellow human. The trouble people get upset when they are asked to significant sacrifices in order to pay for such charity. In this case, the health care bill will result in many people losing their existing coverage and being forced to pay for much more expensive government mandated coverage. It also changes the Medicare system from a fee for service model like Canada to a HMO model which means seniors will have a lot less control over the care that they get. It should come as no surprise that seniors and people with satisfactory private plans will object strenuously to this bill.

[Oleg Bach]

People, for the most part, are not naturally cruel, Oleg. If they have the means to support the poor they will. As Jason Goldberg said in "Liberal Fascism": "Sending tax dollars in to Washington does not fulfill your obligation to your fellow man." That seems to be the consensus under a socialistic system. The problem with the socialist system is that if the economic means to support an already devised system disappears then not only the poor suffer but those dependent upon the system for their well-being are adversely affected.

If the market is not subject to the boom and bust cycles created by government then there is a better chance that the economy will support the necessary institutions that provide charity to the poor. Either way the social safety net, private or public, is paid for out of the surplus of the economy - it can be supplied charitably out of the good-hearted nature of the citizens or taxed out of the economy by coercion. Personally, I think when economic times are bad; that coercion becomes oppressive to the average person.

Even so-called Christianity in the early stages was coercive. Remembering the story of Peter when he insisted on the followers to sell their property and put the money in a common fund - where "they could come and take as needed." Eventually Saint Peter went a little nuts - power and money corrupted the movement instantly - Peter basically killed a man who lied to him about how much money he got for his land - Peter scared the poor bastard to death - Imagine how that effect the village - that if you did not cough up the cash, Peter could strike you dead. This was socialism gone bad.

In response to American Woman insisting that Americans are generous - YES they are - but all I know about the very very established and rich - that run America - they are as cheap as they get and live by the rule of thumb - take all give nothing - unless it is a tax deductable charitably organization - where you are actually turning a profit by giving, which is not really charity..it's buisness.

[bush_cheney2004]

...In response to American Woman insisting that Americans are generous - YES they are - but all I know about the very very established and rich - that run America - they are as cheap as they get and live by the rule of thumb - take all give nothing - unless it is a tax deductable charitably organization - where you are actually turning a profit by giving, which is not really charity..it's buisness.

That's because America is about business....charitable giving stems from the ability to give....not empty intentions.

[Michael Hardner]

AW

I agree; I would have given the same answer, but not having lived with the system, I wanted the opinion of someone who has.

My current boss moved from California to Ontario. His perspective on it is quite different from what I have expected. He prefers the Canadian system, having had to pay deductible out-of-pocket for emergency room visits. His perspective is that his paycheck was roughly the same when taking taxes and health-insurance deductions together. I was shocked to hear that, but he explained that California has a higher tax rate.

The other thing to take into perspective is that he required specialists in Ontario to assist with a child's health problem and this did not cost him anything out-of-pocket in Ontario, whereas (he suspects) that it wouldn't have been covered under his California employer's health plan.

Personally, I'm hoping that the US reinvents public-private healthcare and reinvigorates the model so that Canada can follow that. As it is, our healthcare model is failing, which I would say is due to lack of vigilance by management.

[Oleg Bach]

That's because America is about business....charitable giving stems from the ability to give....not empty intentions.

Can the average American maintain the "ability" to give at this point in time? Look at the spending going on with failed banks and buisness. Look at the huge amount of money going down the drain in Iraq. Someone is making a buck and it's not the average Jane and Joe. I suggest that those that profit the most by dragging America down pay the price that is proper health care. That's why you have resistance to public health services..because those that got to hord and use America as a power base of operations will not like coughing up the cost.

[Guest American Woman]

Since this plan is supposed to expand coverage from the 85% of legal U.S. residents who are currently covered to 96%, I'm still wondering who the 4% that won't be covered are. And why. Can anyone shed any light on this?

[bush_cheney2004]

Can the average American maintain the "ability" to give at this point in time? Look at the spending going on with failed banks and buisness. Look at the huge amount of money going down the drain in Iraq.

Business will be fine...just reconstituted by the winners and losers as before. As for Iraq, don't they deserve their Marshall Plan just like Europe?

Someone is making a buck and it's not the average Jane and Joe. I suggest that those that profit the most by dragging America down pay the price that is proper health care. That's why you have resistance to public health services..because those that got to hord and use America as a power base of operations will not like coughing up the cost.

This is far better than nobody making a buck. I never got a job from a poor man.