Shall we try this again: health care Bill

[monk17]

I agree with this. In fact, I would actually really respect these people because they are truly standing on their principles of forced taxes for ANYTHING. While I might not agree with them I would certainly respect them.

 

It is those that pick and choose what is a "Constitutional" or acceptable tax and what isn't. That is what I just don't understand. :confused:

 

There is NOT a difference. A forced tax is a forced tax! Period! Final! You don't have to support it but you do have to pay into it. It doesn't matter if it is education, roads, military, or gulp, healthcare.

 

They are all the same! If you are forced to pay into it by law then it is NOT a voluntary contribution. The key here is that it becomes voluntary in some peoples minds if they support the tax so many try to justify "forced" taxes by saying certain things are worthy of taxation while others aren't.

 

While ALL taxes are not voluntary many ARE needed. Such is the case with education, military, infrastructure and YES, HEALTHCARE!!

 

It's pretty philosophical with the Libertarian thing, but I just don't think there's room for it in a modern country. Maybe some far off third world place, but the world is a bit too complicated for that philosophy. I here the argument for it all the time, kind of ironic we discuss it over a quasi-government medium called the INTERNET.

[stormy weather]

:grouphug: I understand money being tight, but the penalty would be $95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater. That penalty would rise to $695 or 2.5% of income by 2016. And there are subsidies being offered to households earning less than $88,000 a year.

What I am talking about is money in the bank not a regular income. My experience with medicaid was that if you have any assets worth over $2000 (this included owning a car)you are inelligible.This immediately made my kids inelligible unless I moved the money into my name. My fear is that when "law" is translated into regulations that things will not turn out to be a healthcare "nirvana".

[Haiku]

A four-person family making around $40,000 will pay only about 5 percent of its income. But the same size family making $80,000 will pay nearly 10 percent of its income. Medicaid will be expanded to cover people up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or about $29,300 for a family of four.

 

Well hell! If that's the case, the amount we have to pay will go WAY down. Like, WAY, WAY, WAY down. Our premiums are currently 36.9% of our income. And that's premiums ALONE, not counting co-pays and deductibles. :D

 

PARTY! PARTY! PARTY! :party:

 

Tara

[tadbhoward]

Well hell! If that's the case, the amount we have to pay will go WAY down. Like, WAY, WAY, WAY down. Our premiums are currently 36.9% of our income. And that's premiums ALONE, not counting co-pays and deductibles. :D

 

PARTY! PARTY! PARTY! :party:

 

Tara

 

I truly am happy for you. Unfortunately for us, our cost is going up 20-40%. The union will be voting on the exact amount April 10th.

[Renee in NC]

There it is again. If this is true I am happy. (of course, if we lived in a more expensive area of the US I might not be happy) I have heard that a family of four over poverty level, or around $30,000 will need to get their own or pay the fine (that does not make me happy).

 

Here is the Mass. plan:

 

http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=81&pageID=13&Subpages=yes

 

I have no way to know what the actual federal plan will be, but I know the law was modeled after Mass., so maybe this will be close.

[justamouse]

The problem is that for the people who would most benefit from immigrating to the US, for whom staying in their native countires means starvation and extreme poverty, legal immigration is darn near impossible at this point. Things have changed a great deal over the last ten years, and immigrating legally now means thousands of dollars, connections, attorney's fees, the financial means to learn English... the list goes on. For a family living in Mexico on a few dollars a day, there really is no way to immigrate legally, no matter how hard they work.

 

I really can't fault people who come here illegally to try to make a better life for their children. In their shoes, I'd do the same.

 

:iagree:

 

Right there with ya, sista! Happy to be unprincipled! :D

 

Tara

 

I just talked to a friend today who finally (after such distress) qualifies for Medicaid and she is THRILLED. She's had regular insurance for years with no vision and has been wearing disposable contacts for 7 weeks (the two day kind). She finally gets to get glasses next week. She was almost in tears.

[Renee in NC]

What I am talking about is money in the bank not a regular income. My experience with medicaid was that if you have any assets worth over $2000 (this included owning a car)you are inelligible.This immediately made my kids inelligible unless I moved the money into my name. My fear is that when "law" is translated into regulations that things will not turn out to be a healthcare "nirvana".

 

In NC and FL, assets are not taken into account for children for Medicaid. They do count for adults. Transferring assets to another person is fraud and is punishable by law.

[Lovedtodeath]

This is copied from the AP story, I think they are okay?:

Thanks. We currently spend about 10% (it has frequently been 20% in the past) but we have a lot of choices within that 10% including natural alternatives. I would hate to spend 10% and have it cover none of my choices.

 

I truly am happy for you. Unfortunately for us, our cost is going up 20-40%. The union will be voting on the exact amount April 10th.

:iagree:

[mommyrooch]

Well hell! If that's the case, the amount we have to pay will go WAY down. Like, WAY, WAY, WAY down. Our premiums are currently 36.9% of our income. And that's premiums ALONE, not counting co-pays and deductibles. :D

 

PARTY! PARTY! PARTY! :party:

 

Tara

 

Now I'm with you sista!! Sign me up!!!:thumbup:

[lovemyboys]

Immigration, historically, has nothing to do with the current law-breaking immigrant population that is being considered for amnesty.

 

After the government was well-established, when waves of immigrants came through Ellis Island and other port, they were duly processed, legal, and granted the right to live here through whatever laws were in place at the time. It changed throughout the years.

 

Half of my family is from Oklahoma, and the part that I know anything about is half Cherokee and half Scots, which supposedly came to America from pre-dating the revolution. The other half my parentage came straight off two boats from Norway in the late 1880s. They completed their paperwork (my grandmother still had her documentation from when she was six), jumped through all the legal hoops, learned English *on purpose* because my great-grandfathers planted the two families in an Italian neighborhood so they couldn't rely on their Norwegian friends or relatives, and they became legal citizens. Their work ethic was such that the children all grew up to be professionals: in the clergy, musicians, and professors. 6 children on one side, 8 on the others; not a one did not complete college, girls included, and that long before federal aid!

 

No, America is not about amnesty; it is about legal immigration, about people making their dreams come true through hard work and law-abiding actions.

 

 

:thumbup1: Excellent post.

 

What do I say to my Iranian, German and Ukrainian friends who have all recently become citizens after years of waiting and paperwork, quizzes, learning our history, etc.? They waited in line, followed the rules and are now citizens. I've heard it said that the disregard of immigration laws may lead to disregard of our laws in a larger sense.

 

The current path is unsustainable, just look at California.

 

There's a reason there's a process involved in becoming a citizen, like the butterfly whose struggle to emerge from the chrysalis enables its wings to become strong and viable. The process enables immigrants wanting to become US citizens to learn and prepare so that they are able to take full advantage of what this country has to offer.

 

The bottom line, for me though, is that it is just not what America is about to have this whole "under-class" of people who are here illegally. They are robbed of the ability to participate fully in life here in countless ways. It's a tragedy that many amnesty/immigrant advocates don't like to admit.

[Mrs Mungo]

The bottom line, for me though, is that it is just not what America is about to have this whole "under-class" of people who are here illegally. They are robbed of the ability to participate fully in life here in countless ways. It's a tragedy that many amnesty/immigrant advocates don't like to admit.

 

I don't understand (and I believe the failure is mine, not yours, don't get me wrong). Most of the amnesty advocates recognize that this is an issue. The illegals are *currently* stuck in this under-class. If they had a way to work toward citizenship without being deported, that would not be the case. I have seen very few who want to wave a wand over them and *poof*, make them citizens. Most people believe work needs to be involved.

[stormy weather]

In NC and FL, assets are not taken into account for children for Medicaid. They do count for adults. Transferring assets to another person is fraud and is punishable by law.

Okay, I'll put it another way. I took their names off, and left only mine. And then signed them up. After having it for a few months I dropped it. It was not worth the trouble to me.

I'm simply trying to say that sometimes things do not pan out the exact way that the law is written and real people are left to pay the price.

I know that we do not have an ideal healthcare system, but I feel that there were a lot of smaller changes that could have been made to help the people who want and need it. I guess I just want the freedom to make a choice without being interfered with by the federal gov't.

I'm from the West, can you tell? The thing I have loved about growing up and living in the West is being left alone to live how I see fit! And not seeing people unless I want to. :D It is a sort of expectation around here that you live and let live, and any government should be minimal and mind it's own business.

 

Okay that ended up being longer than I intended. I'll stop. For now.

[lovemyboys]

I don't understand (and I believe the failure is mine, not yours, don't get me wrong). Most of the amnesty advocates recognize that this is an issue. The illegals are *currently* stuck in this under-class. If they had a way to work toward citizenship without being deported, that would not be the case. I have seen very few who want to wave a wand over them and *poof*, make them citizens. Most people believe work needs to be involved.

 

And there's the conundrum, isn't it? You reward the behavior you want to see repeated as a parent. How do you get the message to folks that there's a process for immigration if *everyone else* just comes here as they wish and stays until the gov't grants an amnesty. I know that's simplistic, but the alternative is this under-class that we currently have. It breaks my heart to see the countless abuses and problems with this status.

 

The previous amnesty didn't eliminate the problem, probably just exacerbated it. Perhaps some of the confusion (?) is which amnesty advocates, I was referring to amnesty advocates more anecdotally, the ones I know working in the neighborhoods and churches. That's heartbreaking too, we get to know individuals and hear their stories and care, how could we (the US) send someone away, what's so wrong with letting them stay?

 

But that's not the way a country can operate and even hope to stay fiscally and legally sound. What about the people who live in the Sudan or Malaysia or Yemen who have just as much or more horrendous conditions that they want to leave behind? For want of a land connection, they're *denied* an amnesty? Someone mentioned the money involved in becoming a citizen, but how many fall victim to the traffickers who charge exorbitant rates to ship people in containers from China or ......

 

Ack. The whole situation is just heartbreaking but the illegal underpinnings that we legitimize with amnesties and other end-runs around our immigration laws will only worsen the status of the underclass.

 

Sorry to post and run.

 

We have to pray that sensible and selfless people will be involved in the solutions and leave the political manuevering and the jockeying for additional constituents in the dust, for the good of our whole country and all its future citizens.

[OnTheBrink]

I 100% disagree. And I also believe that if you saw the first 'churches' Christians today would accuse them of being socialist. They lived in community, they shared all things, they took up money to help other 'church' communities in need. I'll go out on a limb and say that I'd bet they'd help non believers, too. Smells like that dirty word Socialism to me. :001_smile:

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, they did. They helped other CHURCHES, other bodies of believers in Christ, not the world at large. The goal of the early churches wasn't to make society better; it was to spread the gospel of Christ. If in that spreading of the gospel, people were helped, then great. There's nothing wrong in that. But it wasn't the goal of the early church to reform the world.

[Mrs Mungo]

Mrs. Mugo while this does not immediately effect Tricare, you can guarantee it will be impacted. Military personal and veterans are covered in Section 17. Guess who was left out...survivors. Those people who elected for survivor benefits and have been paying into the system all along will be forced to buy the government insurance because that plan does not qualify.

 

Just FYI...

 

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/mo04_skelton/house_approves_legislation_to_protect_tricare.html

[Joker]

Does anyone here have information on the recent AP article that children may not actually be covered under this new bill until 2014? I just read an article that stated children with pre-existing conditions (such as asthma) that were not already enrolled in a plan may still be uncovered. I've already stated that I'm not for this bill but I wonder how many voted yea that thought and were told children would be covered. I don't say this to start an argument (I've only started posting recently and I've never set out to ignite an argument) but I am genuinely curious.

[MSNative]

Does anyone here have information on the recent AP article that children may not actually be covered under this new bill until 2014? I just read an article that stated children with pre-existing conditions (such as asthma) that were not already enrolled in a plan may still be uncovered. I've already stated that I'm not for this bill but I wonder how many voted yea that thought and were told children would be covered. I don't say this to start an argument (I've only started posting recently and I've never set out to ignite an argument) but I am genuinely curious.

 

It was my understanding that taxes kick in right away, but benefits don't kick in until 2014. If that's not the case, it certainly was all over many news sources. Don't think anyone can argue that they hadn't heard about it when they voted.

 

Anyone else think we need to start limiting the size of bills? (not just this one. This is an equal opportunity, bipartisan, government in general rant) I can't even get this darn bill to download and I've been trying for days with a great connection. Plus, look at how much confusion we all have trying to discuss this - where is that, what do you mean, is that in there? I'd prefer if the size and scope of bills were limited. Force our elected officials to take the time to succinctly define and propose a solution to an individual problem. None of this shoving everything under the sun into a novel with a good title. Reminds me of a quote I have written you a long letter because I did not have time to write a short one. Too often I think that politicians want to be seen as doing something, so they throw something together rather than taking the time to think.

Getting off the soapbox that jumped under me and stumbling over to the coffee.

[asta]

It was my understanding that taxes kick in right away, but benefits don't kick in until 2014. If that's not the case, it certainly was all over many news sources. Don't think anyone can argue that they hadn't heard about it when they voted.

 

I found this helpful outline on CNN:

 

Within the first year

 

• Young adults will be able stay on their parents' insurance until their 27th birthday.

 

• Seniors will get a $250 rebate to help fill the "doughnut hole" in Medicare prescription drug coverage, which falls between the $2,700 initial limit and when catastrophic coverage kicks in at $6,154.

 

• Insurers will be barred from imposing exclusions on children with pre-existing conditions. Pools will cover those with pre-existing health conditions until health care coverage exchanges are operational.

 

• Insurers will not be able to rescind policies to avoid paying medical bills when a person becomes ill.

 

• Lifetime limits on benefits and restrictive annual limits will be prohibited.

 

• New plans must provide coverage for preventive services without co-pays. All plans must comply by 2018.

 

• A temporary reinsurance program will help offset costs of coverage for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55 to 64.

 

• New plans will be required to implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims.

 

• Adoption tax credit and assistance exclusion will increase by $1,000. The bill makes the credit refundable and extends it through 2011.

 

• A 10 percent tax will be imposed on amounts paid for indoor tanning services on or after July 1.

 

• Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering 35 percent of their health care premiums, increasing to 50 percent by 2014.

 

2011

 

• Medicare will provide free annual wellness visits and personalized prevention plans. New plans will be required to cover preventive services with no co-pay.

 

• States can offer home- and community-based services to the disabled through Medicaid rather than institutional care beginning October 1.

 

• A 50 percent discount will be provided on brand-name drugs for Prescription Drug Plan or Medicare Advantage enrollees. Additional discounts on brand-name and generic drugs will be phased in to completely close the "doughnut hole" by 2020.

 

• Additional tax for health savings account withdrawals before age 65 for nonqualified medical expenses will increase from 10 percent to 20 percent. Additional tax for Archer medical savings account withdrawals not used for qualified medical expenses will increase from 15 percent to 20 percent.

 

• A plan to provide a vehicle for small businesses to offer tax-free benefits will be created. This would ease the small employer's administrative burden of sponsoring a cafeteria plan.

 

• The Medicare payroll tax will increase from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married filing jointly above $250,000.

 

2013

 

• Health plans must implement uniform standards for electronic exchange of health information to reduce paperwork and administrative costs.

 

• Contributions to flexible savings accounts will be limited to $2,500 per year, indexed by the Consumer Price Index in subsequent years.

 

• The Employer Medicare Part D subsidy deduction will be eliminated. Employers will lose the tax deduction for subsidizing prescription drug plans for Medicare Part D-eligible retirees.

 

• There will be increases to the income threshold from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of adjusted gross income. Those older than 65 can claim the 7.5 percent deduction through 2016.

 

• The hospital insurance tax will increase 0.9 percentage points for those earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for married filing jointly), and it includes net investment income.

 

• A 2.9 percent excise tax on the first sale of medical devices will be established. Excepted are eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids or other items for individual use.

 

2014

 

• Citizens will be required to have acceptable coverage or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, $695 (or up to 2.5 percent of income) in 2016. Families will pay half the amount for children, up to a cap of $2,250 per family. After 2016, penalties are indexed to Consumer Price Index.

 

• Workers who are exempt from individual responsibility for coverage but don't qualify for tax credits can take their employer contribution and join an exchange plan.

 

• Companies with 50 or more employees must offer coverage to employees or pay a $2,000 penalty per employee after their first 30 if at least one of their employees receives a tax credit. Waiting periods before insurance takes effect is limited to 90 days. Employers who offer coverage but whose employees receive tax credits will pay $3,000 for each worker receiving a tax credit.

 

• Insurers can no longer refuse to sell or renew policies because of an individual's health status. Health plans can no longer exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurers can't charge higher rates because of heath status, gender or other factors.

 

• Health plans will be prohibited from imposing annual limits on coverage.

 

• Health insurance exchanges will open in each state to individuals and small employers to comparison shop for standardized health packages.

 

• Credits will be available through exchanges for those whose income is above Medicaid eligibility and below 400 percent of poverty level who are not eligible for or offered other acceptable coverage.

 

• Medicaid eligibility will increase to 133 percent of poverty for all nonelderly individuals to ensure that people obtain affordable health care in the most efficient and appropriate manner. States will receive increased federal funding to cover these new populations.

 

• An annual health insurance provider fee will be Imposed across the health insurance sector according to insurers' market share to companies whose total premiums exceed $25 million.

 

2018

 

• 2018 Taxing "Cadillac" plans: An excise tax will be imposed on high-cost, employer-provided health plans beyond $27,500 for family coverage and $10,200 for single coverage; it will increase to $30,950 for families and $11,850 for individuals, retirees and employees in high-risk professions.

 

 

HTH

 

 

a

[Spy Car]

I found this helpful outline on CNN:

 

 

As a broad outline, these strike me as much needed reforms of the health insurance regulations in our nation. The reforms are modest, but necessary, and will help prevent American families from being casualties of shameful practices by insurance providers.

 

Will there be fine-points that crop up we may look at skeptically? I'd expect it. This is "sausage making" after all.

 

One of the areas I have remaining concerns is how to contain costs. This package does little to reign-in spending. And I simply don't believe the "Cadillac Tax" will ever be implemented. Not in 2018. Not ever.

 

And as others have mentioned, as long as we have Federal policies that subsidize and promote poor nutrition (think corn subsidies, current school lunch programs) we are going to have huge back-end costs to deal with.

 

I'm glad for the modest first step. It was long over-due, but there are many miles yet to be trod.

 

Bill

[LisaKinVA]

• Contributions to flexible savings accounts will be limited to $2,500 per year, indexed by the Consumer Price Index in subsequent years.

 

And for those of us with larger families... who go through $6000-7500 in FSA every year, this is a KILLER. The health care reforms will do nothing to address our $4000 a year shortfall.

 

I feel like crying, because every time I turn around I have to find new ways to cut our budget to meet tax increases.

 

Don't forget, the Bush Tax Cuts expire this year... and that includes the $500 per child tax credit, among other things. Of course, the democrats always forget about the tax reductions for the middle class that were so helpful to middle class families.

 

We were supposed to start building our home, nothing extravagant... just a family home we could be comfortable in for many years to come. That dream we have been working so hard for during the past 8 years is being killed.

 

I'm sorry, I need to go. This has all been too much.

[Haiku]

• Contributions to flexible savings accounts will be limited to $2,500 per year, indexed by the Consumer Price Index in subsequent years.

 

 

Is that per person or per family?

 

Tara

[stripe]

"Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America. There has long been a need to assure every American financial access to high quality health care. As medical costs go up, that need grows more pressing. Now, for the first time, we have not just the need but the will to get this job done. There is widespread support in the Congress and in the Nation for some form of comprehensive health insurance."

 

--Richard Nixon, Feb 6, 1974.

[OnTheBrink]

"Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America. There has long been a need to assure every American financial access to high quality health care. As medical costs go up, that need grows more pressing. Now, for the first time, we have not just the need but the will to get this job done. There is widespread support in the Congress and in the Nation for some form of comprehensive health insurance."

 

--Richard Nixon, Feb 6, 1974.

 

access ≠ penalized if not obtained

[asta]

Is that per person or per family?

 

Tara

 

Near as I could tell, it was per family.

 

 

a

[Renee in NC]

access ≠ penalized if not obtained

 

This is the problem, though. If the gov't is going to force the insurance companies to accept everyone, not exclude pre-existing conditions, not allow them to charge $$$$$ to people *with* pre-existings, then it has to give somewhere. You can't put shackles on for profit businesses this way.

 

Requiring *everyone* to have insurance is the only way to make it sustainable for insurance companies - if they have to accept the sick and not charge them more, then they need a large base of young, healthy people to pay for it! Most of those young, healthy people will pay $100-200 a month and never use it. Otherwise health insurance companies will go out of business and all you will have left is the public, single payer system.

 

I support the reform, but I don't like the way they have done it. I would rather do away with health insurance as we know it all together and start over. It's insane! It used to be that health insurance was hospitalization insurance, it covered limited things, and people filed their own claims (after paying the bills.) This is just one of the issues involved - overuse of health care, malpractice expenses, and fraud/waste in the claims process drives up the cost for everyone.

 

I am not afraid of the gov't interference. I am afraid of the system *still* collapsing and people being left out in the cold because of the burden being put on the private companies. The way this is going, the choices will be gone in 10 years.

[LisaKinVA]

Is that per person or per family?

 

Tara

 

Our FSA is per family... the $2500 number figure is the "average" amount used by those who have an FSA. Meaning, it lumps individuals in with families. I am recalling this from the Senate Debate

 

Our previous limit was $7500. That's $5000 dollars we now have to pay taxes on and THEN use on health care, which means health care is going to cost me more as a % of my net income. We were spending 10% a year with the FSA.

 

That $5000 in health care spending is now going to cost me $5800.

 

For the record the $2500 doesn't even cover our family's yearly deductible.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Requiring *everyone* to have insurance is the only way to make it sustainable for insurance companies - if they have to accept the sick and not charge them more, then they need a large base of young, healthy people to pay for it! Most of those young, healthy people will pay $100-200 a month and never use it. Otherwise health insurance companies will go out of business and all you will have left is the public, single payer system.

 

 

 

This is part of what makes me upset. By the time these (now) young and healthy people need it, the system will have imploded.

[Mommyof4ks]

Does anyone here have information on the recent AP article that children may not actually be covered under this new bill until 2014? I just read an article that stated children with pre-existing conditions (such as asthma) that were not already enrolled in a plan may still be uncovered. I've already stated that I'm not for this bill but I wonder how many voted yea that thought and were told children would be covered. I don't say this to start an argument (I've only started posting recently and I've never set out to ignite an argument) but I am genuinely curious.

 

I have read many different opinions on this, but the one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that children with current coverage cannot be dropped if they get sick. It seems unclear if children with pre-existing conditions can get new coverage now or not. 2014 is when adults with pre-existing conditions can no longer be kept from getting insurance. Hopefully someone will have more info on that.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I've been following the conversation intermittently, so forgive me if this already came up.

 

If amnesty is next, as some have suggested, then what happens to all the newly legal people in regards to health care. Assuming the (now) illegals are mostly working low-wage jobs, that means they will qualify to have the gov't pay their health care.

 

Did all of the CBO figures already take that into account? I hope so. If not, where will the money come from?

[Mommyof4ks]

 

I have been wanting to find high deductible/low premium insurance on the individual market and pay out of pocket for doc visits, and I've been waiting to see what would happen with the law. I don't believe that type of policy will be allowed, er, qualify, under the new scheme (talk about a lack of choice!). So for now we'll stick with our very expensive group insurance (>$30k).

 

We have one of those high ded plans through dh's employer, and we are nervous about losing it. Our son just finished treatment for cancer, and if not for the high ded. plan we would be drowning in debt. The copay plan we had made us pay a ded. for the hospital and another one for the clinic and then there were the never ending copays and coinsurance. We met the out of pocket max in a few months, but the daily copays really added up for the remainder of the year. The crazy thing is that we paid thousands of dollars a year in premiums for the copay plan, but only $600 a year for the high ded. plan. Hopefully some very smart lawyers will find a way to keep the high ded. plans and HSAs. Don't give up on finding one.

[Georgiana Daniels]

We have one of those high ded plans through dh's employer, and we are nervous about losing it. Our son just finished treatment for cancer, and if not for the high ded. plan we would be drowning in debt. The copay plan we had made us pay a ded. for the hospital and another one for the clinic and then there were the never ending copays and coinsurance. We met the out of pocket max in a few months, but the daily copays really added up for the remainder of the year. The crazy thing is that we paid thousands of dollars a year in premiums for the copay plan, but only $600 a year for the high ded. plan. Hopefully some very smart lawyers will find a way to keep the high ded. plans and HSAs. Don't give up on finding one.

 

 

I'm worried about losing our high deductible plan too. Although it stinks to have to meet the deductible, all it takes is one out of the blue hospital stay to make it a more affordable option all the way around.

[wapiti]

I'm worried about losing our high deductible plan too. Although it stinks to have to meet the deductible, all it takes is one out of the blue hospital stay to make it a more affordable option all the way around.

 

Here's what I honestly don't understand. Why is the government seeking to get rid of HSAs and high deductible plans? Does anyone know the answer to this? If making insurance more affordable was one of the goals, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Here's what I honestly don't understand. Why is the government seeking to get rid of HSAs and high deductible plans? Does anyone know the answer to this? If making insurance more affordable was one of the goals, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

Great question. Because I don't know the specific language in the law that pertains to this, it's hard to say. BUT, I can only assume that it's because we won't be paying enough into the system to keep it afloat.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Here's what I honestly don't understand. Why is the government seeking to get rid of HSAs and high deductible plans? Does anyone know the answer to this? If making insurance more affordable was one of the goals, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I think they are trying to get us to use healthcare more often. Get the ear infection checked out before it requires a hospital visit. Go as soon as you are sick and get the antiviral started in time. Get your cholesterol checked instead of showing up at the ER shocked that you have had a heart attack, etc, etc.

[spradlin02]

I found this helpful outline on CNN:

 

 

Thanks for looking that up. I'm too busy watching TED today.

 

a

 

As a broad outline, these strike me as much needed reforms of the health insurance regulations in our nation. The reforms are modest, but necessary, and will help prevent American families from being casualties of shameful practices by insurance providers.

 

Will there be fine-points that crop up we may look at skeptically? I'd expect it. This is "sausage making" after all.

 

One of the areas I have remaining concerns is how to contain costs. This package does little to reign-in spending. And I simply don't believe the "Cadillac Tax" will ever be implemented. Not in 2018. Not ever.

 

And as others have mentioned, as long as we have Federal policies that subsidize and promote poor nutrition (think corn subsidies, current school lunch programs) we are going to have huge back-end costs to deal with.

 

I'm glad for the modest first step. It was long over-due, but there are many miles yet to be trod.

 

Bill

 

At least it's a first step. I'm sure there will be more politicking in the near future.

[monk17]

I've been following the conversation intermittently, so forgive me if this already came up.

 

If amnesty is next, as some have suggested, then what happens to all the newly legal people in regards to health care. Assuming the (now) illegals are mostly working low-wage jobs, that means they will qualify to have the gov't pay their health care.

 

Did all of the CBO figures already take that into account? I hope so. If not, where will the money come from?

I would suppose Georgina that they would be American citizens and have the same rights as those of us that are here. A few things to consider why they should get health care: 1. They've been subsidzing our government by paying sales tax, social security tax and making our food cheap by working for low wages. Maybe it's time we paid what it really cost for goods which includes a fair wage to the person picking the crop or cleaning the bed pan in the hospital.

 

It would get pretty nasty if we started limiting government services based on what percentage of overall taxes you paid relative to the rest of the country. I think the upper 1% of tax payers cover about 20% of the fedral budget.

[wapiti]

I think they are trying to get us to use healthcare more often. Get the ear infection checked out before it requires a hospital visit. Go as soon as you are sick and get the antiviral started in time. Get your cholesterol checked instead of showing up at the ER shocked that you have had a heart attack, etc, etc.

 

That's what I was afraid of - mandatory pre-paid preventive care.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I would suppose Georgina that they would be American citizens and have the same rights as those of us that are here. A few things to consider why they should get health care: 1. They've been subsidzing our government by paying sales tax, social security tax and making our food cheap by working for low wages. Maybe it's time we paid what it really cost for goods which includes a fair wage to the person picking the crop or cleaning the bed pan in the hospital.

 

It would get pretty nasty if we started limiting government services based on what percentage of overall taxes you paid relative to the rest of the country. I think the upper 1% of tax payers cover about 20% of the fedral budget.

 

I understand that, and I agree that fair wages are important.

 

My question was, did the CBO already take the cost into account?

[Georgiana Daniels]

Now that I'm thinking on it longer, of course the CBO didn't take it into account since it hasn't actually happened yet. But without some kind of cushion built into their projections, the picture might look less rosy in real life.

 

More to ponder.

[Melissa in FL]

Here's what I honestly don't understand. Why is the government seeking to get rid of HSAs and high deductible plans? Does anyone know the answer to this? If making insurance more affordable was one of the goals, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

They are using the additional taxes that this will generate to pay for health care. They expect to make 1.3 billion by taxing HSA and 14.6 billion by taxing FSA (employer given HSA). The more I look into specific parts of the bill, the more I realize how bad the bill is.

 

I was doing some figuring earlier. I think a lot of low income people think this is going to help them afford insurance, I don't think they understand how much it is going to cost them. The subsidies will be given for a family of four that makes between $29,000 and $88,000. Under that amount will have to go on medicaid, over that amount will be on their own. They will pay a sliding scale of 3%-9% of their income for insurance.

 

So, lets look at a family of four that chooses not to have health insurance now that is in between that level. We'll say they make $58,000. They now have to pay 6% of their pay for insurance. That is: $3480/year and that does not include any co-pays or deductible that their plan will have. They are also going to loose their child tax credit at the end of this year which is $2000 (Bush tax credits aren't being renewed). So, next year they will loose $5480 that they now have to spend. That is $455 less dollars a month that family will have.

 

Add to this what the State will have to add in taxes to cover their portion of the bill. FL will have to pay an additional 1.6 billion into medicaid to pay for the new people that will be eligible and they will have to hire 1000 new workers to oversee the larger program. Like all states, we are broke and this money will have to come from somewhere (the only choice being the taxpayers, unless we can drill offshore? OK, that's another thread, LOL).

 

I am really worried about this because the above scenario is where my sister is. I'm not sure of her exact income, but I bet that middle number is close. They live pay check to pay check now and can NOT afford to lose $455 a month. I really think they will lose their house if the numbers I'm working with are right. They've been close to losing it in the past and I think this will send them over the edge. All along my sister has thought this was a great idea because they would finally get insurance, but I think the reality is they still won't be able to afford it. They get by now by paying cash for all their physicals and any other medical expenses. Yes, they have been lucky. But I think this new health care bill will soon find them homeless. Hmmmm, tough choice: health care or roof over your head. Well the Federal government just took away their choice! All I can do is pray that our State and the others that are suing win.

 

I know a lot of people have said people lose their homes when they have to pay medical expenses. I think people will also lose their homes because they HAVE to pay for insurance. I think a lot of people don't realize that this is NOT just free insurance.

Melissa

[kokotg]

They are also going to loose their child tax credit at the end of this year which is $2000 (Bush tax credits aren't being renewed).

 

Extension of the child tax credit is in Obama's 2010 budget and isn't expected to meet with much resistance in Congress.

[LisaKinVA]

Extension of the child tax credit is in Obama's 2010 budget and isn't expected to meet with much resistance in Congress.

 

Where have you seen that? I have been looking all over the internet and have only come up with articles from 2009 (and before)...

[Perry]

.

[justamouse]

Yes, they did. They helped other CHURCHES, other bodies of believers in Christ, not the world at large. The goal of the early churches wasn't to make society better; it was to spread the gospel of Christ. If in that spreading of the gospel, people were helped, then great. There's nothing wrong in that. But it wasn't the goal of the early church to reform the world.

 

I completely, totally and wholly disagree.

[Renee in NC]

They are using the additional taxes that this will generate to pay for health care. They expect to make 1.3 billion by taxing HSA and 14.6 billion by taxing FSA (employer given HSA). The more I look into specific parts of the bill, the more I realize how bad the bill is.

 

I was doing some figuring earlier. I think a lot of low income people think this is going to help them afford insurance, I don't think they understand how much it is going to cost them. The subsidies will be given for a family of four that makes between $29,000 and $88,000. Under that amount will have to go on medicaid, over that amount will be on their own. They will pay a sliding scale of 3%-9% of their income for insurance.

 

So, lets look at a family of four that chooses not to have health insurance now that is in between that level. We'll say they make $58,000. They now have to pay 6% of their pay for insurance. That is: $3480/year and that does not include any co-pays or deductible that their plan will have. They are also going to loose their child tax credit at the end of this year which is $2000 (Bush tax credits aren't being renewed). So, next year they will loose $5480 that they now have to spend. That is $455 less dollars a month that family will have.

 

Add to this what the State will have to add in taxes to cover their portion of the bill. FL will have to pay an additional 1.6 billion into medicaid to pay for the new people that will be eligible and they will have to hire 1000 new workers to oversee the larger program. Like all states, we are broke and this money will have to come from somewhere (the only choice being the taxpayers, unless we can drill offshore? OK, that's another thread, LOL).

 

I am really worried about this because the above scenario is where my sister is. I'm not sure of her exact income, but I bet that middle number is close. They live pay check to pay check now and can NOT afford to lose $455 a month. I really think they will lose their house if the numbers I'm working with are right. They've been close to losing it in the past and I think this will send them over the edge. All along my sister has thought this was a great idea because they would finally get insurance, but I think the reality is they still won't be able to afford it. They get by now by paying cash for all their physicals and any other medical expenses. Yes, they have been lucky. But I think this new health care bill will soon find them homeless. Hmmmm, tough choice: health care or roof over your head. Well the Federal government just took away their choice! All I can do is pray that our State and the others that are suing win.

 

I know a lot of people have said people lose their homes when they have to pay medical expenses. I think people will also lose their homes because they HAVE to pay for insurance. I think a lot of people don't realize that this is NOT just free insurance.

Melissa

 

In Mass. with those numbers, your sister's family would pay between $77 and $118. They are almost over the limit for their family size, so if their income were to go up it would surely hurt them. I think at that income level, though, it may behoove them to see a budget counselor to figure out *how* to afford insurance. If they aren't so lucky (say someone gets appendicitis) they will lose everything, too. I understand that sometimes there just isn't any choice.

 

My family will have insurance for the first time in 10 years as of April 1st. It will cost 14% of our income. We're going to make it happen somehow because it is that important. I have gone without regular medical care for years!

[Slartibartfast]

It's pretty philosophical with the Libertarian thing, but I just don't think there's room for it in a modern country. Maybe some far off third world place, but the world is a bit too complicated for that philosophy. I here the argument for it all the time, kind of ironic we discuss it over a quasi-government medium called the INTERNET.

 

I think you are right

[kokotg]

Where have you seen that? I have been looking all over the internet and have only come up with articles from 2009 (and before)...

 

I'm never sure what I'm allowed to link to....I googled "2011 budget child tax credit" and there's an article on there from CNN's financial site...the 2011 budget actually proposes expanding the child tax credit. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire (because they were passed through reconciliation, is my understanding of it; they expire unless Congress votes to extend), but President Obama only campaigned on letting the cuts for people making over $200,000 expire. He always said he intended to keep the child tax credit.

 

ETA: I should have said "2011 budget" originally, not 2010

Edited March 25, 2010 by kokotg

[LisaKinVA]

Obama only campaigned on letting the cuts for people making over $200,000 expire. He always said he intended to keep the child tax credit.

 

I don't believe he ever actually "said" that... otherwise a staffer would have replied to one of several inquiries we made during the campaign. He was actually silent on this issue specifically. People have inferred he would keep them.

 

The only expansion I have found is on the earned income tax credit, with reference to the deduction for dependents -- which is a separate issue (at least that is what I have been told).

[Perry]

Where have you seen that? I have been looking all over the internet and have only come up with articles from 2009 (and before)...

I found this

Middle-class tax relief from 2001 – The budget assumes the three middle-class provisions –

the 10 percent bracket, marriage penalty relief, and the Child Tax Credit – are permanently

extended. Other provisions enacted in 2001 that would be extended in the budget include

the 25 percent and 28 percent brackets, the adoption tax credit, and the dependent care tax

credit.

from BRIEF ANALYSIS

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FY 2010 BUDGET

PREPARED BY: MAJORITY STAFF, SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE

[Slartibartfast]

I don't believe he ever actually "said" that... otherwise a staffer would have replied to one of several inquiries we made during the campaign. He was actually silent on this issue specifically. People have inferred he would keep them.

 

The only expansion I have found is on the earned income tax credit, with reference to the deduction for dependents -- which is a separate issue (at least that is what I have been told).

 

He said it several times actually. Joe the Plumber was crying because he made more than 200K

 

That is what that whole thing was about