Contributors

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

The First Bill

Essentially, there are three bills kicking around Congress right now to address the issue of health care coverage in this country. The first is America's Affordable Health Choices Act. The second is The Healthy Americans Act. The third is the United States National Health Care Act.

The first bill , which we will talk about today, is the one introduced by Ted Kennedy in the Senate and is also making the rounds in the House with Rep Dingell. It is also known as HR 3200. The bill requires that all American have health insurance similar to how all Americans must have auto insurance. Here are some of the highlights of the bill.
  • Eliminating the Medicare Part D “donut hole” to help seniors. Each year, Seniors are forced to pay their full drug costs, despite having Part D drug coverage. The legislation would provide them with immediate relief, cutting brand name drug costs in the donut hole by 50%, and ultimately eliminate the donut hole.
  • Relieving the burden of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers. Detractors of the bill don't like to talk about this one. The fact is that we are already spending taxpayer money on people who can't afford health insurance. This bill would end that as everyone would be insured.
  • No deficit spending. The cost of health care reform under the legislation is fully paid for: half through making the Medicare and Medicaid program more efficient by eliminating waste and half through a surtax on the income of the wealthiest individuals aka the top one percent.
  • Help for small businesses. Under the legislation, small businesses with 25 employees or less and average wages of less than $40,000 qualify for tax credits of up to 50% of the costs of providing health insurance. Don't believe the bullshit lie of the right that government run health care will ruin small business. It won't. What will ruin it is these same small businesses having to pay increase after increase...year after year.
  • The bill provides health insurance for almost every American and provides common sense limits on annual out-of-pocket costs at $10,000 per year, ensuring that no citizen will have to face financial ruin because of high health care costs.
For some bizarre reason, the right's first beef with this bill was that it would force elderly citizens into euthanasia...a classic "fear-shit your pants" maneuver on a very small part of the bill. The reality is explained quite will in this Washington Post article.

The controversy stems from a proposal to pay physicians who counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical interventions they would prefer near the end of life and how to prepare instructions such as living wills. Under the plan, Medicare would reimburse doctors for one session every five years to confer with a patient about his or her wishes and how to ensure those preferences are followed. The counseling sessions would be voluntary.

But on right-leaning radio programs, religious e-mail lists and Internet blogs, the proposal has been described as "guiding you in how to die," "an ORDER from the Government to end your life," promoting "death care" and, in the words of antiabortion leader Randall Terry, an attempt to "kill Granny."

What part of the word "voluntary" doesn't the right understand? I guess words only have meaning when they like the meaning.

The bill has gone through many changes and I'm sure it will continue to evolve. This is the plan that President Obama favors and stands the best chance of passing. But is it a good bill?

For the most part, yes. The core of this bill is to offer the public another option--an option that will compete with private insurers. I think this is a good thing because it puts the control back in the hands of the individual. If you are spending too much money on health insurance every month...something that will not likely change as virtually all insurance companies won't lower their prices...you now have a public option. If you don't like the public option and can afford to spend a little more money, you can keep your private insurance. No one is going to force you to do anything.

Another criticism of this bill is that it will drive insurance companies out of business. To those who say this, I say...take a look at the profits of Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble and tell me if they have been hurt by public libraries. People buy books and people check out books. People might by some extra insurance if they are worried (which, of course, they will be) about waiting in long lines.

No one really knows how the organic process of this is going to evolve. The right will have you believe that we will all be boiling alive in a pit of sewage. How the fuck do they know? What are the basing it on? I'm basing my optimism on the proven track record of Medicare. They are basing their ideas on....what exactly....their rage and fear?

I can safely say that I think that if this bill passes, there are going to be problems....PROBLEMS LIKE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW!! But they are going to be, at the very least, manageable because we, the people, are actually addressing them. Things might need to be changed (gasp!) as time goes on and the kinks are worked out.

At the end of the day, this bill could give us an increase in healthier Americans. Healthier Americans mean more innovation in the work place, more money to invest in the stock market and more money to spend in a sagging economy.

In other words, it's another example of President Obama attempting to save capitalism.

18 comments:

juris imprudent said...

"Imagine how much automobile insurance would cost if it paid for all expenses associated with owning an automobile – oil changes, engine failures, worn-out tires, brakes, rust, and so on. The number of people who couldn't afford car insurance would rise dramatically, and we would have a car insurance crisis in America."


From this. I strongly suggest reading the whole thing.

And M, are you just going to spew new blog entries, or are you going to engage in some dialogue?

juris imprudent said...

And here in particular is the question (comment on your previous post) I would really like you to answer...

why should I help pay for something that isn't necessary [for you] either via a private or public system?

rld said...

That's a great article you linked to JI. Thanks.

6Kings said...

Whoa, whoa, Juris.... that article you linked to is advocating *gasp* personal responsibility and we can't have that lest the entire socialist/Democrat party would disappear.

Kevin said...

"No deficit spending. The cost of health care reform under the legislation is fully paid for:"

Have you seen the economy lately? We're ALREADY deficit spending.

"half through making the Medicare and Medicaid program more efficient by eliminating waste"

I have NEVER IN MY LIFE seen a government program eliminate waste. Every program I'm aware of GROWS in costs, most way beyond their original estimates. Why should this one be any different?

" and half through a surtax on the income of the wealthiest individuals aka the top one percent"

Ah yes, those rich bastards need to pay their fair share! Because they don't pay enough right now. It saddens me that you don't even see the immorality in this at all, Mark. It horrifies me that half the country agrees with you.
"From each according to his ability to each according to his need". Honestly, you'd think we'd fucking LEARNED from the last century of history, but the left in this country thinks they've got it all figured out. This shining city on a hill has gotten noticeably dimmer over the last few months. God help humanity when you people finally extinguish it.

last in line said...

I got lots going on right now.

Good points Kevin.

"Relieving the burden of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers."

It won't relieve the burden, it will just shift the burden from the states to the federal government.

"No deficit spending...making the Medicare and Medicaid program more efficient by eliminating waste"

Uummm, yeah.

"an option that will compete with private insurers....virtually all insurance companies won't lower their prices."

I can tell you who will win if a government were to compete with a private company, especially when the government is going to set the rules. Wait, I already did in the last thread. Do you think the government will ever lower their prices?

"How the fuck do they know? What are the basing it on? I'm basing my optimism on the proven track record of Medicare. They are basing their ideas on....what exactly....their rage and fear?"

When Medicare was being considered in the mid-1960s, the government projected that the outlays for the program 25 years down the road would be $10 billion. 25 years later in 1990, the outlays were $107 billion. Juuuust a bit outside! Medicare spending rose from $5.1 billion in 1968 to $436.0 billion in 2007 an increase of 85.5 times over the 40-year period.

Medicaid, the other large medical program currently in effect, outdid Medicare in the crap department. Medicaid outlays in 1968 were $1.8 billion. In 2007 they had risen to $190.6 billion, an increase in dollar terms of 105.9 times. And that is only the Federal outlay....there is an equal Medicaid amount spent by the states due to federal mandates...which is one of the reasons we are constantly reading about large deficits that most states are enduring nowadays.

That's your proven track record?

NotClauswitz said...

Markadoofus isn't going to answer any of your silly paranoid negative conservative FASCISZTICAL delusions - his magic pixie-dust inspires him to love Obama and the Giant Flying Umbrella...

Sam said...

"What part of the word 'voluntary' doesn't the right understand?"

"The bill requires that all American have health insurance..."

Heh.

Hehehe.

Seriously?

Mark Ward said...

"And M, are you just going to spew new blog entries, or are you going to engage in some dialogue?"

Sorry, juris. I'm trying to get a bunch of stuff out at once...plus work on my summer studies, kids, and book...I finally now have a chance to respond here and over at TSM.

"why should I help pay for something that isn't necessary [for you] either via a private or public system?"

Well, you shouldn't...mostly. What is it exactly that you think you will have to pay for?

Going to read your article now....

Mark Ward said...

The article makes some fair points. I question, though, exactly what insurance companies are covering that is trivial. My insurance only covers much of what the article describes...nothing trivial.

"I have NEVER IN MY LIFE seen a government program eliminate waste. "

True, but you bring up an interesting point, Kevin. We all know that the military engages in wasteful spending. Yet, any complaints about said spending are met with cries of being unpatriotic. Why? We support the military--and we should--but not the health of our citizenry? It makes no sense to me.

"That's your proven track record?"

Yes, but does it work and do people like it? If so, how can improve the problems that it has? And the answer "no government" is not an answer. We've seen what happens when there is no government around.

Since you brought up the numbers, aren't you angry that we spend more money on health care than any other country and get shit for it in return? Of course there is a potential for disaster in this plan but it is much greater if nothing is done. Our economy won't take it.

"Seriously?"

I was speaking of the euthanasia portion of the bill.

last in line said...

I'm not angry because I don't agree that we get "shit for it". We have the highest quality healthcare in the world. It may not be paid for by the govt but there is nowhere else I'd rather go for it.

Ahhh Mark, the government did play a role in the financial collapse. Don't pretend otherwise.

A plan that costs a trillion dollars won’t add to our deficit. Really? And adding a public plan on top of that won’t create another entitlement commitment on top of the underfunded entitlements we already have now. And the unicorns will run through the lollipop fields with the Easter bunny to collect all of the lemonade raindrops for Peter Pan. Don’t forget to clap for Tinkerbell.

Potential disaster if we do nothing? Stop scaring people.

blk said...

Somehow these arguments always devolve to how those poor rich people are being taxed to death.

Regular people pay income taxes, which range up to 35 or 38%. They also have to pay state income taxes and social security and Medicare taxes on that income. They are also subject to sales tax, property tax and myriad smaller taxes that, once they're all taken into account, push the average person's tax burden to 40 or 50%.

The wealthy derive (or can derive if they make the appropriate decisions) most of their income from investments. Investments are taxed at the capital gains tax rate, which is currently 15%. They can also invest heavily in things that have no tax consequences, such as tax-free municipal bonds. The other taxes (property and sales) are so insignificant that they are a nit to the wealthy.

The wealthy can also avoid state income tax by buying additional homes in low-tax states like Texas, and claim citizenship there, while using all the resources of high-tax states like New York or Minnesota to conduct all their business.

Even taking into account the consequences of the Alternative Minimum Tax, the wealthy who choose to structure their lives properly can easily wind up paying only 15-25% of their income in taxes.

Furthermore, wealthy individuals who have their own corporations (pretty much all of them do this if they have smart accountants), can structure their lives so that their health care, houses, cars, air travel, clothing, meals, etc., are all considered tax deductions for the corporation. Thus, many of their personal expenses are paid for in full or in part by taxpayers who don't enjoy such deductions.

This is why it is so hard to figure out how much guys like Rush Limbaugh actually make. The corporation gets the income, which always has lots of deductions (including the Limbaugh's salary), and many of the profits go to the shareholders (Limbaugh) as "distributions," which are taxed as capital gains instead of at the regular rate (and are exempt from SS/Medicare taxes). They can also reinvest the profit elsewhere, sheltering that income with myriad scams crammed into the tax code for this purpose.

That means a guy like Warren Buffett pays 17% in taxes while his secretary pays 30% (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s). He says he doesn't do anything weird to shield his income, and I know from personal experience this is right.

This is why people believe that millionaires aren't paying their fair share, and why they should pay a surtax for the health care of the people who actually do all their work for them.

The capital gains rate was lowered to 15% during the Bush Administration, by the way. Another one of those things that they said would help the average guy, but allowed hedge fund managers to screw us even more -- they got a special exemption to count their salaries as capital gains.

Kevin said...

Blk, you're justifying theft.
The class envy bullshit bores me.
Mark, yes defense spending is wasteful, as is every other form of government spending. However, that is one of the few duties of government laid out on the Constitution. I can't find anywhere where the government is supposed to provide free healthcare for all.

juris imprudent said...

Somehow these arguments always devolve to how those poor rich people are being taxed to death.

Really? I'm not rich, but I asked the question about why I should pay for an unnecessary medical procedure for someone else either via taxes OR medical insurance premiums. You even agreed with me on that. So why the "oh, look over there" opening?

juris imprudent said...

Well, you shouldn't...mostly. What is it exactly that you think you will have to pay for?

Ah, you don't even remember the context of my question.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

Mark Ward said...

Actually, Kevin, blk is wealthy and is one of those people that ends up paying only 15-20 percent of his taxes. Retired in your mid 40s, right blk?

Mark Ward said...

Juris, I'll go back and read it.

Kevin said...

Good for him. Let blk VOLUNTARILY pay for someone else's healthcare. Just don't use the gov to FORCE this abortion ok the whole nation at gunpoint.