Now They Tell Us
[Guest post by DRJ]
Now that ObamaCare has been signed into law, campaign-mode Obama explains the facts about health care:
“President Barack Obama on Thursday flipped into campaign mode and dared Republicans to repeal the healthcare law.
**
Obama’s speech highlights growing confidence in the White House and the Democratic party that they have seized political momentum with the healthcare vote.While dozens of Democrats face possible defeat in November’s elections, the party believes it has seen the worst of the political cycle.
Republicans who described the healthcare reform as a disaster for the country are now blasting the delays in reform that come as part of the legislation.
Obama warned that it “will take about four years to implement this entire plan – because we need to do it responsibly and we need to get it right.”
“That means that health care costs won’t go down overnight,” Obama said.”
There was a time when Congress’ job was to draft, consider and responsibly pass legislation. Under President Obama and the Democrats, Congress passes legislation first and worries about whether it works later.
EDIT: Specifically, it’s irritating to hear Obama talk about the need to be careful and responsible when that wasn’t a concern when the legislation was being written and considered. It’s like taking the time to research which are the best new cars after you already bought the clunker.
— DRJ
He’s trying to push back expectations because he knows that the public will see nothing from this bill before his next presidential election, except higher taxes.
The “More Cowbell” strategy will fail.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/25/2010 @ 12:39 pmI agree.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/25/2010 @ 12:43 pmThat’s a good point. It’s also annoys me that politicians only ever speak/think in 2, 4, or 6 year intervals.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 3/25/2010 @ 12:45 pmOver confident. At least I certainly hope so.
LYNNDH (8d8b19) — 3/25/2010 @ 12:46 pmHonestly – I dont think anyone knows what the full impact of that monstrosity will be
EricPWJohnson (44912d) — 3/25/2010 @ 12:50 pmThere are taxes and mandates that begin immediately. The parts that they labeled a crisis, coughcoughBScough, do not go into effect until after the next presidential election. Courage. People are not going to like paying taxes for nothing.
JD (0151be) — 3/25/2010 @ 12:54 pmVoting for a bill you haven’t even read is considered to be doing things “responsibly” and “getting it right” in Obama’s world?
You can’t even parody such narcissism; you just can’t.
ras (88eebb) — 3/25/2010 @ 12:59 pmIt’s like trying to assess what the impact of a 10.0 earthquake would be; so many nuances.
ras (88eebb) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:01 pm“Flipped into campaign mode?” The dude tells off McCain at that insincere photo-op summit by saying “The campaign’s over,” and immediately afterward heads out on the road where (smaller) crowds were chanting “Fired Up! Ready to Go!”
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:08 pmNot “more cowbell” — more cow pie.
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:10 pmI’m wondering just how ignorant you guys were of this legislation. You mean you didn’t know it mainly kicked in starting in 2014? Didn’t you heard the wingnut refrains that “the benefits only are for 6 years” ? What did you think that meant?
imdw (e6c812) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:12 pmI thought we were supposed to get a raise this year because the companies were going to get a 3,000% reduction in their health care costs?
What happened to that in 4 days?
Jim (582155) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:24 pmDRJ: If you haven’t heard before now the legislation will take a few years to fully implement you haven’t been paying attention.
As for JD, Mr. Disingenuous (when he wants to be), the individual mandate does not begin until 2014. Meanwhile, there are some things that do begin immediately:
Within the first year, according to CNN
• 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.
And in 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.
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:26 pmSo far, imdw, we seem to know more about the legislation than you, or Obama, does.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:26 pmNotice how Myron is repeating talking points that are already obsolete. Especially the line about preexisting conditions.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:30 pmSPQR: Facts are now talking points?
If DRJ’s post is an indicator, that you guys didn’t know some provisions won’t kick in until later, I don’t think you’re any position to be lecturing me on what’s a Talking Point or what’s in the bill. I’m not convinced you know anything about it at all.
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:33 pmThat’s “you’re IN any position” …
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:34 pmStop running away from the earlier threads, puss – puss.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:38 pmOf course we know some provisions don’t kick in until later, Myron. The “Now They Tell Us” title is directed at the fact Obama and the Democrats view careful, responsible consideration as important, but only after-the-fact. They certainly didn’t feel that way while it was being written and passed — when Obama said we had to hurry to pass it and Pelosi said we’d find out what was in it after it was passed. All that hurry-up-and-act attitude is gone now, isn’t it?
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:39 pmDRJ: OK. Of course, they would disagree with your assertion they were not careful and responsible in crafting the bill. I would also disagree. But thanks for clarifying what you meant.
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:41 pmHow can it be careful consideration when most Democrats had never even read it?
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:43 pmHere’s a clarification – stop running away and go back to the earlier threads, puss – puss. Grow a sack and stop being such an intellectual coward.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:45 pmDRJ: You have proof that most Democrats have not read it? I’d like to see it, please.
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:46 pmDmac: I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Name-calling behind the anonymity of a blog, by the way, is kind of the definition of cowardice. Where I grew up, anyway.
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:47 pmZing.
Leviticus (0fca60) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:50 pmMyron, given how often you post talking points as “facts” when they are not, I’m in the perfect position to lecture you. Especially when you pretend to ignore the issue with the language in the bill regarding pre-existing conditions. Your record of misrepresentation speaks for itself.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:55 pmMuron, please e – mail the host and hostesses of this blog and ask them to release my e – mail and phone number, then you and I can have a little talk, just by ourselves.
Sound good, puss – puss? Do it right now. Leviticus is watching, and he’s vewy concerned.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 1:56 pmSPQR: Whatever.
Dmac: Whatever x2.
Go throw a brick through a congressman’s window or something if you want to deal with your problems.
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:02 pmMyron, Dick Durbin admitted he didn’t know what was in it when speaking in the Senate. A Congressman being interviewed on the radio was asked about a provision and didn’t know it was in the bill.
Now, it happens that I know that most Congressmen don’t know what is in the legislation they vote on. Their staffs tell them what to do. Still, few bills have the impact that this will have and nobody knows what the final provisions will do. For one thing, doctors have provided free care for decades. Most primary care docs I know don’t bother to bill Medi-Cal for services. They do the care as a favor to some patient who is a relative of a paying patient or as a favor to another doctor. I’ve done this both ways; asked someone to see a patient on Medi-Cal as a favor and done the same for them. The reason I bring this up is that the sum total of all this free care is unknown to the masterminds who wrote this bill. When they force people to buy insurance, they will find that utilization is an order of magnitude higher because the free care will go away.
One more mistaken assumption by the people who don’t understand economics.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:11 pmGo throw a brick through a congressman’s window or something if you want to deal with your problems.
What. A. Ginormous. Pussy.
Still think it’s funny, Leviticus? Do stay on here, I’d love to hear your additional thoughts on decorum and cowardice.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:15 pmMike K: You’ve named one person and cited another unnamed person. This is evidence that two people don’t know everything that’s in the bill.
As for Medi-Cal, why would you, as a conservative, want health care to be free for anyone? I thought much of the opposition was to stop freeloaders from getting care?
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:17 pmDmac: Your immaturity is shining through, dude. If you can’t defend your points without losing it, I am not sure this forum is a good fit for you.
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:27 pmWhat about those 200,000+ people who will die of the lethal condition “lack of health insurance” during those years, Obama?
How do you sleep at night? (/sarc)
Techie (43d092) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:29 pmTechie: You might have heard that it’s a radical overhaul. The whole system is changing, you might have heard. It’s not a magic-wand type deal. It’s going to take some time.
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:31 pmCongratulations, Mr. President. Now you have accomplished jack s***. The one thing this legislation will not cure — in fact will only exacerbate — is the proliferation of the “do something!” disease among those that hold dear the idea of the nanny-state.
Icy Texan (909a4a) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:32 pm“The “Now They Tell Us” title is directed at the fact Obama and the Democrats view careful, responsible consideration as important, but only after-the-fact. They certainly didn’t feel that way while it was being written and passed — when Obama said we had to hurry to pass it and Pelosi said we’d find out what was in it after it was passed. All that hurry-up-and-act attitude is gone now, isn’t it?”
How much hurry up has there been? This has been going on for like a year.
imdw (c679b6) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:34 pm[…] Patterico’s Pontifications: Now They Tell Us: There was a time when Congress’ job was to draft, consider and responsibly pass legislation. […]
Shut Up, America, & Just Deal with It… Horrible ObamaCare Reconciliation Bill Passes 56-46, Plus Michigan Rep. Dingle’s “Control the People” Sound Bite (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:40 pm“It’s gonna take time
A whole lot of precious time
It’s gonna take patience and time
To do it, to do it, to do it, to do it, to do it,
To do it right, child”
— George Harrison (“Got My Mind Set On You”)
Myron has definitely heard that message, and is okay with it; for, after all, “the whole system is changing”. It’s “a radical overhaul” (or is that “an overhaul by radicals?”)
Re-making America does take some time, ya know.
Icy Texan (909a4a) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:43 pmthere’s no sign that ever occurred, just that your body aged….
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:45 pmimdw, that you think such a radical overhaul (using Myron’s descriptor) in our system, and in the way that government relates to people and vice-versa (see Patterico’s post two days ago addressing this), is such a minor thing that a year seems a sufficient amount of time to get it in gear can’t help but speak to your lack of comprehending the very serious and negative effects this will have on our country; and that is not even considering the unintended consequences.
You must also remember that in that year, one party was effectively left out of the loop for the vast majority of it. So, yes, it’s been going on for a year but what you fail to consider is that while you believe *what* specifically took place that year was a good thing, we see at is a travesty at best.
Dana (1e5ad4) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:47 pmDRJ, you night wanna consider reediting the post to just this one line: it pretty much covers everything. 😀
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:48 pmIcy Texan: If you’ve read my comments on other threads (and how could you have not? they’re so entertaining. 🙂 ) you’ll know I think this reform is a change in the foundation of the way Americans think about health care. In other words, I don’t flee from your characterization of my characterization of the change.
And the George Harrison lyrics are a nice touch.
Myron (6a93dd) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:49 pmYour immaturity is shining through, dude.
Meanwhile, your abject cowardice has been self – evident throughout. The usual MO of a true coward: lobby turds into each thread, then run away when challenged, only to re – emerge on a later thread.
This is a blog for people who make their cases and then stick around to defend them, not cowards who scurry away with their tails between their legs as soon as they are shown up. This is quite obviously not the place for you, since you’re a cowardly cur of the worst order.
DRJ mentioned earlier that you should go back to the earlier threads and engage – or do I have to do this simple work and re – post the response for you?
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:53 pmObama must think he’s Dirty Harry or something–go ahead, GOP, make my day. That’s a fine example of all of this civility he’s preaching at the rest of us.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:53 pmName-calling behind the anonymity of a blog, by the way, is kind of the definition of cowardice. Where I grew up, anyway.
Which was summarily answered:
Muron, please e – mail the host and hostesses of this blog and ask them to release my e – mail and phone number, then you and I can have a little talk, just by ourselves.
Is there a problem, Muron? Why are you running away, yet again?
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 2:57 pmI suppose we should be grateful that Myron and imdw, etc. waste so much of their time here, all the while knowing that they are not going to convert us heathens. Still, (and I know I bring this up about once a week) they and their ilk really do drive away from this site commenters who crave thoughtful, reasonable, insightful and yes, funny discussions in which to contribute and to learn from. Perhaps that’s their goal. It’s just getting too hard to wade through all those insults and crap to get to the gold. (Look at this thread up through #10 and then afterward, to see what I mean). At the same time I accept and respect that a number of the Patterico regulars genuinely do enjoy the ongoing intellectual game and match of wits? with these guys.
Here’s an idea, Patterico and DRJ. How about occasionally hosting a few troll free zones for those of us who would like a more linear discussion. You could also implement a few daily “Mad Max beyond Thunderdome” type forums for those who want to play that game to the death.
This probably sounds like I’m trying to tell you how to run the site. I don’t mean to. I just think you need to hear that for many of us it’s just not as much fun here as it used to be. Thanks.
elissa (04724f) — 3/25/2010 @ 3:03 pmIt is the job of our elected representatives to define how we Americans think about health care? Are we so stupid (as Bill Maher says) that we need our betters to do our thinking for us? And the “foundation” that’s being changed is what — the profit motive? free enterprise? the right of those that choose to go without insurance to not be FORCED (at gunpoint, aka/ rule of law) into purchasing coverage?
Yes, the foundation is being changed — from freedom of choice to more & more federal control . . . all in the name of protecting our rights.
Except for those sticky-whicket rights, like self-determination.
Icy Texan (909a4a) — 3/25/2010 @ 3:11 pmDRJ: You have proof that most Democrats have not read it? I’d like to see it, please.
There’s certainly evidence of absence…I have not heard one Democrat, including the President, explain all the provisions, time lines, costs, and requirements of this bill.
The President made a few bloopers even today- the law about exclusions for existing conditions for children isn’t in there. There is no mechanism for getting offspring under 26 on their parents’ insurance.
And I’ve seen video of Anthony Wiener having an impossible time trying to explain how the fine for ignoring the mandates will be levied.
They don’t know what’s in there. Show me evidence they do.
MayBee (ee4d93) — 3/25/2010 @ 3:25 pmwade through all those insults
Elissa: I think you should be talking to Dmac about that. He is the one who is losing it and trying to incite violence because he can’t defend his arguments. I’m not taking the blame for any of this, sorry.
Grown-ups should be able to withstand intellectual challenges without becoming enraged and incoherent.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 3:27 pmThere’s certainly evidence of absence…I have not heard one Democrat, including the President, explain all the provisions, time lines, costs, and requirements of this bill.
May-Bee: It’s 2,000-page bill. I’m sure you’ve heard that, b/c it’s a popular GOP Talking Point. Obama has been known to give long speeches, but that would be a stretch even for him!
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 3:31 pmIcy Texan: As for the radical nature of the bill, both parties support the most radical part: That insurance companies must accept people with pre-existing conditions.
Check this out, from the Post:
“There is non-controversial stuff here like the preexisting conditions exclusion and those sorts of things,” (Republican) Sen. John Cornyn said. “We are not interested in repealing that. And that is frankly a distraction.”
That should send a chill through the hearts of small-government conservatives. A fundamental change in private insurance, a rock-solid conservative calls a “distraction.”
An insurance company must be able to control the amount of risk it takes – and neither party cares to uphold that principal b/c of an emotionally popular provision. Again, there’s that foundational shift I’ve spoken of before.
This seems to me an eventual path to single-payer.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 3:39 pmMay-Bee: It’s 2,000-page bill. I’m sure you’ve heard that, b/c it’s a popular GOP Talking Point. Obama has been known to give long speeches, but that would be a stretch even for him!
He got things wrong about the highlights just today.
MayBee (ee4d93) — 3/25/2010 @ 3:41 pmHe could at least start by dropping the political taunts in his speech, and spend that time going over details of his law.
Don’t you want that?
May-Bee: You seem to imply there is not enough information out there about the law, and I don’t agree. Have you been to the CNN link I posted above? There’s a good place to start.
If you’re looking to understand every nuance from a 2,000 page bill from TV soundbites, it’s just not going to happen.
As for the taunts: Obama has political enemies, whose only goal is to cripple his administration. He can’t let them undermine him or the bill when he’s trying to sell the bill.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 3:44 pmGrown-ups should be able to withstand intellectual challenges without becoming enraged and incoherent.
Once again, pure projection from our favorite Troll. When called on past fraudulent behavior of posting then running away, double down and project it onto others in a wan attempt to deflect.
You’ve been darted and tagged, Muron – that tin can will be tied to your hindquarters for the rest of the time you post here. Count on it.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 3:47 pmDmac: If you deem it so, chuckles, it’s so.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 3:49 pmelissa, here’s what Muron’s attempting to avoid:
#Myron can solve this by responding to MD in Philly’s polite inquiries in other threads.
Comment by DRJ — 3/25/2010 @ 12:35 pm
But Muron isn’t willing to solve it, he always runs away, preferring instead to lob incoherent monikers and other intellectually cowardly deflections. Cowards always run away when called on their behavior – and it was ever thus.
Dmac felt strongly enough that he called-out Myron for his intellectual cowardice (in the environment of a blog, I happen to agree with him).
Comment by Pons Asinorum — 3/25/2010 @ 1:22 pm
Bingo.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 3:54 pmDmac: You’ve still posted nothing specific. I comment on plenty of threads. What comments by MD in Philly specifically? Or which thread? And look how long it took you to even get to this point. You could have said this up top, in lieu of being a child about it.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 3:58 pmMyron – I said not one word about the individual mandate, so I fail to see what I was being disingenuous about. There are plenty of other “you will do this” and “you will not do this” types of mandates in this monstrosity. You are truly not a very gracious winner. How many Dems do you think would raise their hand and state that they read the whole bill?
JD (f74695) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:00 pmOnce again, the feigned ignorance, the request for someone else to do the Troll’s work. This request was by our hostess, yet Muron prefers instead to deflect attention to me instead. Won’t work. Try again, you intellectual gutless coward.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:02 pmJD: You were being disingenuous by pretending only the things that are burdens start this year while conspicuously ignoring the benefits that also start this year. This always strikes me as a red flag, that someone is not interested in an honest debate.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:03 pmNo. I am saying I don’t think the President knows very much about the law, nor do most of the lawmakers who voted on it. I am saying they have not publicly demonstrated a grasp of the law.
MayBee (ee4d93) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:04 pmI have not seen any evidence that Democratic lawmakers have carefully considered this bill.
Have you?
What’s even funnier is the reality of a “child” requesting that the proprietor of this site release his private information to the Troll, in the expectation that they can conduct a private conversation amongst themselves. Yet Muron declines and prefers instead to project, yet again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:05 pmExcept your party has shrieked that is an outright lie for the last year …
JD (0151be) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:06 pmMay-Bee: How do you know if they understand the bill if you don’t understand the bill? To assume that the politicians don’t understand it, you would have to have read the bill and have an understanding of it yourself. But your questions don’t give me that impression.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:06 pmThis always strikes me as a red flag, that someone is not interested in an honest debate.
Comedy GOLD, Jerry!
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:07 pmThe taxes start right away, no?
Save your breath, MayBee … 🙂
JD (0151be) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:08 pmDmac: You have nothing more to add but insults, so I will have to ignore you until you have something to say or to seriously debate.
I have engaged you already too long with this fifth-grade business. To the others on here with real ideas, I apologize for my culpability in this exchange. I am the one who should know better.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:10 pmBut your questions don’t give me that impression.
If this is part of your forthcoming stand – up act, when can we buy tickets? Still avoiding the question, as per usual. Answer the request from our hostess, now.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:10 pmMay-Bee: How do you know if they understand the bill if you don’t understand the bill? To assume that the politicians don’t understand it, you would have to have read the bill and have an understanding of it yourself. But your questions don’t give me that impression.
What of my questions makes you think I don’t understand the bill?
MayBee (ee4d93) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:11 pmI understand it well enough to know the President got 2 of his (very few) assertions wrong today.
As to your first sentence- that’s the craziest question I’ve heard in a long time.
I know Stephen Hawking understands theoretical physics, even though I don’t.
Except your party has shrieked that is an outright lie for the last year …
JD: They might not see it the way I do. I’m sure some don’t. I’ll allow for that.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:16 pmMyron – You are doing that thing where you assume what conservatives should think again. It’s offensive because most of the time you are wrong. It takes up wasted comments to correct you and merely makes you look like a clown.
Your comment to Mike K – “As for Medi-Cal, why would you, as a conservative, want health care to be free for anyone? I thought much of the opposition was to stop freeloaders from getting care?”
A comment in reply to Icy Texan where you are dumping on conservatives for supporting excluding preexisting conditions by insurance companies – “An insurance company must be able to control the amount of risk it takes – and neither party cares to uphold that principal b/c of an emotionally popular provision.” Myron, that equation has two variables you dolt. It’s both the price of the risk and the amount. If the insurance company can adequately price the risk, they should be comfortable accepting it. The insurance companies get part way there through the mandate, which conservatives do not like. If ObamaCare unreasonably regulates their overall pricing, they will exit the business.
Progressives like yourself want them to exit the business because there should be no profit in the provision of healthcare. It should be delivered, monitored and rationed through inefficient government bureaucracies. The cost of it doesn’t matter because the government can always tax the people or print money. Deficits don’t matter.
Was I close on that, Myron?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:18 pmFrom the Gee, I hope it works thread, and various other threads …
Pons-
Maybe I will post the same thing any time I see Myron post until he answers.
Comment by MD in Philly — 3/24/2010 @ 11:45 am
I hadn’t seen him since, until he showed up on the thread thanking Karl.
Should I insert into that thread the following?
..There’s a big, wide America out there, and I would wager Americans main concerns right now are getting or keeping their jobs…
They will wait to see how the bill affects them and watch the tweaks… Myron
Correct, they will see taxes go up, the price of insurance and everything else in healthcare go up over the next 4 -5 years with no visible benefits. They will get laid off because their employer can no longer afford to keep them on the payroll. They will anticipate going onto medicaid or some other govt. plan that will give them no choices.
I think Republicans in particular have not figured that maybe Americans are just tired of talking about health care period and won’t want to hear another several months of a GOp plan to replace one bill with another, and kick people off of care? – Myron
Maybe many politicians and MSM folks have not figured out that the American people are just tired of being lied to, like your straw man that the conservatives just “want to kick people off of care“.
Our local paper yesterday had a front page story on the anticipated changes to health care, the main source was the CEO of the local hospital/health system who basically said it was going to increase their costs and overhead on everything, and they would be in trouble if the general economy in the area did not pick up. And this is a health system that already supports (with financial and logistical help) a community non-profit that provides care for the uninsured. I doubt that is what the reporter expected to hear.
As far as the CBO score, as said before, just like a computer, garbage in, garbage out.
Myron you apparently didn’t see this on a previous thread, so I’m giving you another chance to respond:
61.We just have a fundamentally different view of what government’s role in health care should be, and it won’t be bridged.Comment by Myron
And just what is that role, if I may ask for clarification?
Do you think health care should be rationed by the federal government, de facto because of an overall limit of supply at least, if not by direct limitation of specific services?
Do you think the healthcare disparity in America should increase between those truly wealthy (or connected) and the rest of us?
Do you think pharmaceutical companies that bring new drugs to market should be financially penalized for it?
Do you think the further erosion of medicine as a profession will improve healthcare for anyone?
Do you trust a government clerk or administrator with no medical training to tell your doctor what to do?
Do you want doctors to worry about ordering too many tests, so that you don’t get the head CT since you’re the third person this month complaining of severe headaches?
Do you want many of the brightest students to decide to do something other than go into medicine?
I’m not sure if that is really your view of the government’s role in health care, but that’s what you are getting.
If you were thinking of ensuring that everyone would have access to the kind of health care you want for yourself and your family, I’m afraid you will be sadly mistaken (or you have very low expectations).
I say this as a doctor who saw patients whether they had insurance or not, whether they could pay or not, like a lot of doctors in decades past before medicare and medicaid came into being.
Remember, Medicare rejects services about twice as often as private insurers and is about to collapse under it’s own weight. Just how is giving that kind of system the reponsibility for even more people going to cost less and provide better care?
The liberal view is to have the government run it, whether it actually helps people or not. Apparently you are of the mindset that everybody (except the few) having a worse but equal outcome run by the government is better than a free system that provides better for everybody, but not necessarily equal, run by private citizens with the minimum government oversight as necessary.
I prefer systems that actually provide better services for the individuals involved, and other than a standing military, I don’t see where government does that.
Oh, my bad, there is another place where the govt. does it better, enforcing the taking of personal earnings from the populace through the IRS, the one place that will be hiring over the next few years.
Comment by MD in Philly — 3/24/2010 @ 10:06 am
JD (0151be) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:20 pmMayBee: When you asked, “I have not heard one Democrat, including the President, explain all the provisions, time lines, costs, and requirements of this bill …”
I thought it meant you didn’t know the answer to the questions. I didn’t know you were coming from the perspective that you knew all this information and just wanted to hear them say it. Sorry for the mix-up.
As for pre-existing conditions and children, this is what the Christian Science Monitor is reporting, which tracks closely with other outlets:
The rollout starts with children. Six months from the day the bill was signed (let’s see … that’ll be Sept. 23, by our calculation), insurers will no longer be able to exclude children with preexisting conditions from being covered by their family policy. For current policies, that means insurers will have to rescind preexisting-condition exclusions.
Insurers will not have to take the same steps for adults until Jan. 1, 2014.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:27 pmThanks, JD: Let me tackle the two comments before No. 72 and I’ll address MD in Philly’s points.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:28 pmAre they going to be allowed to price appropriately since they now have to accept the risk of pre-existing conditions?
JD (0151be) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:29 pmWhat effect do you think that might have on premiums?
JD (0151be) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:34 pmMayBee: Here is a Cleveland Plain Dealer article about the provision with kids staying on their parents’ insurance through age 26.
I don’t know what you mean about their being no mechanism to get it done. I would assume the individual private insurance companies, to comply with the requirement, will figure it out themselves how to get it done. It’s their customer; not the government’s.
But it starts within this first year.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:35 pmso I will have to ignore you until you have something to say or to seriously debate.
Translation: “I’m going to run away as per usual and come back on a later thread, to which I’ll feign ignorance in the hopes that others will forget.”
We actually care what happens on this blog, Muron – and when someone’s behavior exemplifies their lack of any discerning character, their game is essentially over. You’re done.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:37 pmJD: Just to answer 76 now, I think it’s clear from my post in No. 51 that I don’t think this model will work in the long-run for private insurance. In short, premiums will rise, unless of course, there is even more government intervention.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:37 pm“You could have said this up top, in lieu of being a child about it.”
Comedy Gold – Myron does Robert Gibbs.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:40 pmPons-
Maybe I will post the same thing any time I see Myron post until he answers.
Comment by MD in Philly — 3/24/2010 @ 11:45 am
A classic example of Muron’s trolling – but note how you had to post the entirety of all of your arguments in order to drag any kind of response out of Muron. Typical.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:40 pmonly you* would think that is a good thing…..
(*and some other morons.)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:41 pmOK, JD, I’ve decided to ignore Daley’s No. 71 post: I saw a few insults and that’s enough for me. I’m not wasting any more time with people who childishly name-call, because I think these issues deserve a more serious airing and because, well, I’m an adult.
I’ll be addressing MD in Philly in a series of Posts, then I’m done for the evening.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:41 pmdone? dude, you were never in the running….. you were born with a fork stuck in you.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:43 pmCorrect, they will see taxes go up, the price of insurance and everything else in healthcare go up over the next 4 -5 years with no visible benefits.
This is misleading at parts, inaccurate at others. Taxes for households making more than $200,000 will go up. I’m fine with that. Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy so dramatically, that he moved the chains completely. I’m for moving them back. As for ‘no benefits,’ just not true. There are plenty of benefits. Go to the CNN link.
They will get laid off because their employer can no longer afford to keep them on the payroll.
You don’t know this. Pure speculation. There are tax cuts for small businesses.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:45 pmbut tax cuts are bad…. please make up your tiny mind before posting.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:48 pm“because I think these issues deserve a more serious airing and because, well, I’m an adult.”
Right, Myron, because adults argue by assuming arguments for their opponents that don’t have a basis in reality. You are not happy when people do that with you, why should others be happy with you when you constantly assume that style of argumentation. That may not be child-like, more teenage, but certainly not adult.
I’ve pointed it out to you before. Try to shape up going forward.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:50 pmMyron- from your own link:
It’s unclear at this point if a child has to be a student…
“There are no other specifics right now for who qualifies,” she adds. “Regulations will specify who qualifies as a dependent.”
If a child has already aged off a parent’s insurance coverage, they will be able to get back on, as long as they do not have the option of getting insurance through their own employer and they have not yet turned 26
“The legislation doesn’t provide for employers to limit who qualifies,” says Collins. Any limits “will depend on guidance that is still to come.”
That’s what I mean by no mechanism. No specifics.
Obama today:
Have you ever previously heard the President make the caveat about all new plans and some current ones?
Ah well, that can all be worked out. I suppose, now that the law is law.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
MayBee (ee4d93) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:51 pmMaybe many politicians and MSM folks have not figured out that the American people are just tired of being lied to, like your straw man that the conservatives just “want to kick people off of care“.
Republicans are not interested in reforming health care. When they were in total power they passed a completely unfunded prescription drug bill as a sop for seniors but never sought real reform. The House bill they proposed during this debate only insured an additional 3 million. That’s not serious, IMO. In this country, at every major stage of improving care over the years, they resisted the initial bill (and capitulated over time). I’m expecting the same going forward. It’s even happening earlier than usual.
As far as your story about the hospital, I don’t know anything about their operations and have no way of knowing if what they predict will happen will happen.
As far as the CBO score, as said before, just like a computer, garbage in, garbage out.
My thoughts on the CBO are well-documented on other threads. But in sum, the side that doesn’t like the numbers say the numbers are bunk. That’s politics, not economics.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:52 pmMyron- from your own link:
It’s unclear at this point if a child has to be a student…
“There are no other specifics right now for who qualifies,” she adds. “Regulations will specify who qualifies as a dependent.”
If a child has already aged off a parent’s insurance coverage, they will be able to get back on, as long as they do not have the option of getting insurance through their own employer and they have not yet turned 26
“The legislation doesn’t provide for employers to limit who qualifies,” says Collins. Any limits “will depend on guidance that is still to come.”
That’s what I mean by no mechanism. No specifics.
Obama today:
Have you ever previously heard the President make the caveat about all new plans and some current ones?
Ah well, that can all be worked out. I suppose, now that the law is law.
ps. I am having the hardest time posting comments here.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
MayBee (ee4d93) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:54 pmBy the way, the GOP “Kicking people off care” part was the strategy I believe the Dems will use if Republicans foolishly pursue repeal-and-kill, er repeal-and-replace.
But it would kick some people off care, if the bill is repealed which wouldn’t be before next year at the soonest.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:54 pmI guess it was too much to expect you to actually respond substantively. How about this, Myron. What do you think of the post titled “Gee, I hope this works” ?
JD (b537f4) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:55 pmJD: I’m taking a break from the “Response to MD Philly” series to answer your No. 75, which I just saw.
Are they going to be allowed to price appropriately since they now have to accept the risk of pre-existing conditions?
That’s a key question that I’ll have to look up. I THINK currently they can. But I also know that some Dems are talking about eliminating even that basic insurance practice. Will the GOP also go along? Another key question.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:58 pmThe bolded part is a a new disclaimer.
From Myron’s own link:
It’s unclear at this point if a child has to be a student, says Jennifer Tolbert, a principal policy analyst at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, or if they have to live with a parent. There was a provision that said the children had to be unmarried, but that was removed by the Senate.
“There are no other specifics right now for who qualifies,” she adds. “Regulations will specify who qualifies as a dependent.”
If a child has already aged off a parent’s insurance coverage, they will be able to get back on, as long as they do not have the option of getting insurance through their own employer and they have not yet turned 26, says Sara Collins, a vice president of the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit, non-partisan foundation focused on improving the health care system.
“The legislation doesn’t provide for employers to limit who qualifies,” says Collins. Any limits “will depend on guidance that is still to come.”
—-
That’s exactly what I’m talking about, Myron.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
MayBee (ee4d93) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:00 pmMyron: We just have a fundamentally different view of what government’s role in health care should be, and it won’t be bridged.Comment by Myron
Q: And just what is that role, if I may ask for clarification?
I believe the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. I believe Americans have a right to affordable health care. I believe it falls under equal protection, guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.
Of course, y’all beg to differ. And the gap is unbridge-able.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:07 pmOK, lightning round!
Do you think health care should be rationed by the federal government, de facto because of an overall limit of supply at least, if not by direct limitation of specific services?
Health care is already rationed now, based on who can afford it. There is no system anywhere that does not ration care. So I’m indifferent.
Do you think the healthcare disparity in America should increase between those truly wealthy (or connected) and the rest of us?
I don’t see how you can make the first argument above and believe the second. I don’t accept the premise of this argument at all.
Do you think pharmaceutical companies that bring new drugs to market should be financially penalized for it?
I don’t think life-saving drugs should be patented in the first place.
Do you think the further erosion of medicine as a profession will improve healthcare for anyone?
I don’t accept the premise. Your post is full of dire predictions that you have no way of knowing will come to pass.
Do you trust a government clerk or administrator with no medical training to tell your doctor what to do?
D.A.P. (don’t accept the premise). It’s useful to keep in mind that an insurance hack (with no medical training) makes the decision now. An insurance hack who has a for-profit incentive to limit payouts for care.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:16 pmOK, lightning round, part 2!
Do you want doctors to worry about ordering too many tests, so that you don’t get the head CT since you’re the third person this month complaining of severe headaches?
I don’t think this will happen. Do government doctors behave this way now, the ones who provide Medicaid, Medicare, care for the military, Congress et al.? In short, D.A.P.
Do you want many of the brightest students to decide to do something other than go into medicine?
No. But again, you’re assuming a dire consequence with no way of knowing if it’ll come to pass.
I’m not sure if that is really your view of the government’s role in health care, but that’s what you are getting.
I don’t believe you. Further, the current system is not sustainable.
I do agree that a gaping hole in the bill is that the actual costs of services is not addressed. Until we address that, any system we come up with will not be viable in the long run.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:22 pmAs for Medi-Cal, why would you, as a conservative, want health care to be free for anyone? I thought much of the opposition was to stop freeloaders from getting care?
Comment by Myron
Maybe you should have been standing there with me for the thousands of hours I provided free medical care to understand but you wouldn’t ever be bothered about serious things like that.
That was messy and usually in the middle of the night. You were comfy in your bed when I was up operating on drunken insolvents, many illegally here.
You want to take money from productive people and use it to fund an inefficient program that will help to drive the country off the cliff. There actually is a good reform program that we could use but the Democrats wouldn’t ever support it because it uses a market mechanism to control costs.
Instead, they are going to destroy a system that 82% of the population is satisfied with. That system could be reformed because it is too expensive but no, they will replace it with an even more expensive system that will not provide good care and which will contribute to fiscal collapse.
Please ignore me Myron. You are always threatening to do that but then you fill the thread with DNC talking points. Ignore us all, Myron.
Please.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:25 pm“D.A.P. (don’t accept the premise). It’s useful to keep in mind that an insurance hack (with no medical training) makes the decision now. An insurance hack who has a for-profit incentive to limit payouts for care.”
Myron – Those clerk decisions are typically appealable within an insurance carrier up to a level to people with medical experience and then outside to state regulators. Who will decisions and treatment protocols be appealable to under ObamaCare since the faceless bureaucrats from the government are setting them?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:27 pmMayBee: The law stipulates that private insurers will have to let children stay on their plans until age 26.
Are you making an assumption that insurers simply won’t do it, regardless of the law?
None of that affects what Obama said. The law goes into effect this year.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:28 pmThe current system is not sustainable, so let’s implement a system even less sustainable !!!
Rationing does not occur now. There are choices as to allocation, but rationing is an entirely diffrent beast.
Someone who spends billions of dollars on reasearch and development and marketing should not be able to patent their product?!?! Are you effin kidding me?
JD (355e34) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:29 pmThis D.A.P. or don’t accept the premise is just Myron’s new way of dodging issues he does not want to discuss. As usual, he’s demonstrating his surface level knowledge of the subject and desires for how he wants things to turn out and avoiding the issues and complications involved in the implementation. Sort of like Obama’s – MAKE IT SO!
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:33 pmMike K: You’re trying to have it both ways and you get mad b/c I call you on it. Conservatives like yourself do not want people to have care that they don’t pay for. At least rhetorically. But in your role as doctor — and thanks for your service — you feel differently, b/c you see people as humans, not as numbers or freeloaders. I just think it’s useful to think of people that way all the time.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:33 pmJD: Are you effin kidding me?
No. I value life more than money. You?
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:35 pmThat is such a ridiculous and dishonest construct that I am at a loss for words.
JD (355e34) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:37 pm“Conservatives like yourself do not want people to have care that they don’t pay for.”
There you go again Myron.
Citation please.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:39 pmWhat is it with leftists that they feel so comfortable just taking other people’s property because of how they feel?
JD (355e34) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:39 pmNo. 99: Daley, insurance companies are for-profit. They have people whose job it is to look for services to deny. Insurance companies’ ultimate decision on care will be based on money.
At least the faceless bureaucrat will have clear guidelines to follow.
But whatever system we adopt someone outside you and your doctor will be in on the decision. For most people anyway, b/c of the cost of care.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:40 pmAsspulls-R-Us, daleyrocks.
JD (355e34) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:41 pmMayBee: The law stipulates that private insurers will have to let children stay on their plans until age 26.
Are you making an assumption that insurers simply won’t do it, regardless of the law?
I made no assumptions. Did you read your link?
It is unclear who qualifies. It is unclear if the 26year old has to live at home. It is unclear if all plans or just new plans will have to offer this option. The 26 year old cannot have the option of joining his employer’s insurance.
It is unclear how much it will cost.
As far as I can tell, there is no limit to how much the insurance company can charge for this honor.
It is unclear who qualifies as a dependent. Does a child of the 26 year old?
Those are not my questions, Myron. Those are the things that are not yet worked out.
ps. Thanks Stashiu.
MayBee (ee4d93) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:42 pmCitation please.
Daley: This blog.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:43 pmWhat is it with leftists that they feel so comfortable just taking other people’s property because of how they feel?
JD: You equate the cure for polio with the patent on a video game. I don’t.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:45 pmThat statement is both hysterical, and unsurprising given the ignoramus who wrote it.
So..Myron…please take a few minutes and outline the steps, starting from basic research by which a drug is developed, evaluated, tested for safety, vetted by lawyers, and eventually produced.
Do you know how much it costs, literally, to bring a new drug to market?
Oh, I know: government should pay for all of that, too!
You really should, well, learn a couple of things before you write “I am a nice guy and I believe nice things about a nice world” statements regarding the evil of patenting “lifesaving” drugs.
But then, you are a journalist, right? Ever take a science class? Even once?
Maybe like Al Gore did, and we know how he did at Harvard on that course.
What a maroon.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:46 pmNo, I do not, Myron. That was a lie. A damn lie.
JD (355e34) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:47 pm“They have people whose job it is to look for services to deny.”
Myron – They have people whose job it is to check to make sure that claims presented are valid according to the terms of the policy. It’s that simple. Paying claims that are not in accordance with the terms of the policy would discriminate against other policy holders, endanger the financial safety of the company and the other policy holders, and defraud the shareholders. It’s that simple. Why do people like you want to ignore valid contractural obligations? You continue not to understand this subject matter Myron.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners undertook a comprehensive look at policy rescissions last year. For the number of insured Americans, the number of invalid rescissions they found to me was surprisingly small. You should educate yourself before opening your yap.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:47 pmAnd by the way, JD, the guy who did come up with that polio cure agrees with me:
When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:47 pmThose are the things that are not yet worked out.
MayBee: I get that. But why are you assuming for just this one provision in the law, they won’t be worked out? This is neither the first nor last law that sets out a requirement that some institution or busines will have to meet, without specifying every single detail.
In fact, if there were too many details handed down by the feds, wouldn’t your side be hollering that it’s way too intrusive?
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:51 pmMyron – in your little world, would you even allow pharma and biotech companies to exist?
JD (355e34) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:53 pmI would rather it be spelled out than left to the whims of some leftist political appointee.
JD (355e34) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:55 pmThat was a lie. A damn lie.
JD: How was it a lie? Your sole focus re: a life-saving drug is that it is someone, or some entity’s, property alone, namely the person or entity who researched and developed it.
If that’s your focus — vs the life-saving aspect of the drug — than that’s no different AT ALL from saying that a drug-maker and video-game maker are about the same. They come up with oroducts they need to research, make, design and sale. No difference — to you.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:56 pmAnd that should be “They come up with PRODUCTS ..”
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:57 pmPoorly thought-out, terribly constructed, enforced by the IRS. The DemocRATS will pay dearly for this and other far-left agenda items in November 2010 and November 2012.
GeneralMalaise (20e943) — 3/25/2010 @ 5:58 pmAll: I know about the double-standard when I leave this blog to do other things in my life. I’ll be criticized for fleeing or running or ducking or whatever. But *sigh* it comes with the hostile territory, and I know the deal. Not whining, mind you. Not whining. 🙂
But if you check the time-stamp, I’ve been at it for a while and tried to answer questions from those who weren’t children about the asking. I’m on the east coast, so nite, and peace.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:01 pmI’m not assuming they won’t be worked out.
I said they are not worked out.
If you are going to make a law requiring companies to do something, it is by no means intrusive to tell them what they are supposed to do.
And it is not too demanding for citizens to ask what the law is supposed to be, considering it is a law.
But after a year of promising 26-year olds they’ll be on their parents insurance, the fact that they don’t have it worked out is certainly a “now they tell us” moment.
MayBee (ee4d93) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:03 pmExcept they (the politicians) aren’t telling us.
As I said, to me that is evidence that they may not know.
• Young adults will be able stay on their parents’ insurance until their 27th birthday.
The slacker clause?
• 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.
Medicare is broken and this isn’t even a bandaid..
• 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.
OK, but someone is going to have to pay for this (this bill is economically unsustainable)
• Insurers will not be able to rescind policies to avoid paying medical bills when a person becomes ill.
Fair enough. But how often does this happen?
My understanding is that this usually occurs because people don’t stay current on their premiums.
• Lifetime limits on benefits and restrictive annual limits will be prohibited.
This is going to cost some $$
• New plans must provide coverage for preventive services without co-pays. All plans must comply by 2018.
Costs $$$ ?
• A temporary reinsurance program will help offset costs of coverage for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55 to 64.
Costs $$$ ?
• New plans will be required to implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims.
OK
• Adoption tax credit and assistance exclusion will increase by $1,000. The bill makes the credit refundable and extends it through 2011.
OK
• A 10 percent tax will be imposed on amounts paid for indoor tanning services on or after July 1.
Stupid
• Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering 35 percent of their health care premiums, increasing to 50 percent by 2014.
Sure. But it still costs the employer real $$$ to implement. Most employees in small businesses prefer equivalent cash to benefits
And in 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.
Costs $$$
• States can offer home- and community-based services to the disabled through Medicaid rather than institutional care beginning October 1.
I’m sure the bankrupt states are thrilled and cannot wait to start. $$$
• 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.
Costs. $$$
• Additional tax for health savings account withdrawals before age 65 for nonqualified medical expenses will increase from 10 percent to 20 percent. Additional tax for Archer medical savings account withdrawals not used for qualified medical expenses will increase from 15 percent to 20 percent.
Thanks for telling me what I can spend my health care dollars on there big brother…
• A plan to provide a vehicle for small businesses to offer tax-free benefits will be created. This would ease the small employer’s administrative burden of sponsoring a cafeteria plan.
What the hell does this even mean?
Ease the burden? How?
(I realize I am impertinent and I grovel before all power)
• The Medicare payroll tax will increase from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married filing jointly above $250,000.
Wealth redistribution
Steve G (7d4c78) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:04 pm• Young adults will be able stay on their parents’ insurance until their 27th birthday.
The slacker clause?
• Seniors will get a $250 rebate to help fill the “doughnut hole” in Medicare prescription drug coverage, which falls between the $2,700 initial limit and when catastrophic coverage kicks in at $6,154.
Medicare is broken and this isn’t even a bandaid..
• Insurers will be barred from imposing exclusions on children with pre-existing conditions. Pools will cover those with pre-existing health conditions until health care coverage exchanges are operational.
OK, but someone is going to have to pay for this (this bill is economically unsustainable)
• Insurers will not be able to rescind policies to avoid paying medical bills when a person becomes ill.
Fair enough. But how often does this happen?
My understanding is that this usually occurs because people don’t stay current on their premiums.
• Lifetime limits on benefits and restrictive annual limits will be prohibited.
This is going to cost some $$
• New plans must provide coverage for preventive services without co-pays. All plans must comply by 2018.
Costs $$$ ?
• A temporary reinsurance program will help offset costs of coverage for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55 to 64.
Costs $$$ ?
• New plans will be required to implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims.
OK
• Adoption tax credit and assistance exclusion will increase by $1,000. The bill makes the credit refundable and extends it through 2011.
OK
• A 10 percent tax will be imposed on amounts paid for indoor tanning services on or after July 1.
Stupid
• Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering 35 percent of their health care premiums, increasing to 50 percent by 2014.
Sure. But it still costs the employer real $$$ to implement. Most employees in small businesses prefer equivalent cash to benefits
And in 2011:
• Medicare will provide free annual wellness visits and personalized prevention plans. New plans will be required to cover preventive services with no co-pay.
Costs $$$
• States can offer home- and community-based services to the disabled through Medicaid rather than institutional care beginning October 1.
I’m sure the bankrupt states are thrilled and cannot wait to start. $$$
• A 50 percent discount will be provided on brand-name drugs for Prescription Drug Plan or Medicare Advantage enrollees. Additional discounts on brand-name and generic drugs will be phased in to completely close the “doughnut hole” by 2020.
Costs. $$$
• 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.
Thanks for telling me what I can spend my health care dollars on there big brother…
• 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.
What the hell does this even mean?
Ease the burden? How?
(I realize I am impertinent and I grovel before all power)
• 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.
Wealth redistribution
Steve G (7d4c78) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:05 pmMyron…you might look just a little bit into the history of Jonas Salk.
But that would take, you know, research and stuff.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:06 pm“I’m on the east coast, so nite, and peace.”
and with that, young Myron climbed into his favorite jammies – the pair with the kangaroo feet – recited his customary prayer to the goddess Gaia, climbed the ladder to the upper bunk bed, clutched his ‘Bama Bear and drifted off to a dreamless sleep.
GeneralMalaise (20e943) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:16 pmI am going to ignore the abject BS that Myron threw at me, or in his terms, I reject the f*cking premise.
Butler beat Syracuse!!! Good Indianapolis team.
Myron never answered whether he would allow pharma and biotech or medical device comapnies to exist in his little world.
JD (b771ae) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:20 pmThe 14th Amendment and equal protection clause?
Extended to healthcare?
Well, once the state offers the care, it has to offer it to everyone…
But the 14th amendment does not require offering healthcare to anyone.
I have an inalienable right to pursue happiness… and giving my money to enable Myron’s slacker existence is a buzzkill… where’s my equal protection?
Steve G (7d4c78) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:23 pm13 Myron,
for now, without a constitutional cap it means just about anything…..
EricPWJohnson (44912d) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:24 pmMike K – those of us who either are doctors or who have doctors in our family know what changes medicine-as-a-career has gone through over the years … and then there are the myronics of this world …
As a result of the lack of reasonable Tort Refom, which the Dems have fought tooth-and-nail for decades, less and less people are going in for specialties like OB/Gyn … the kids of OB/Gyns used to seriously consider becoming doctors themselves … my wife did become an OB/Gyn (she is a daughter of 2 OB/Gyns) … our four daughters saw what she went through over the years and basically said “That $%@#@#$ ain’t worth it !” … a remarkable number of her peers in medicine are themselves kids of doctors – and yet their *own* children are mostly going into almost anything except medicine …
Something as simple as “Loser pays” would allow that current 15-16% of the economy currently spent on healthcare to actually be spent on healthcare – not on malpractice insurance, not on defensive medecine, not on overly-safe, overly cautious medicine …
The other industrialised nations have comparable outcomes in their medical systems and they can spend less than 10% of their economy doing so … rather than trashing the current US system, how about fixing it instead ?
With genuine bipartisan involvement – with people who actually practise healthcare activities involved – unlike Obamacare, unlike Hillarycare …
How about with legislators committing themselves to a position whereby the legislation doesn’t get passed until the legislators are proud to put themselves and their families under the coverage they propose ? The GOP is willing to commit to that – and the Dems table that as fast as they can … here is the proposed GOP amendment …
I and many others strongly believe that everyone appropriate should be subject the same way to the same legislation passed by legislators, and especially the legislators themselves … the current Democrat leaders seem to believe that they should be immune, exempt, not subject to the same laws as the rest of us …
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:37 pmjust out of curiosity, having read the squirming above, what it to prohibit insurers from refusing to cover children?
they could have a plan for whatever adults are enrolled, and even cover pregnancy and child birth, but what says they have to bring the progeny onto the policy?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:45 pmOnce again, as has happened uncounted scores of times, Myron’s own link does not state what he claims.
Again, Myron.
That’s why you have the reputation you do here.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:51 pmjust out of curiosity, having read the squirming above, what it to prohibit insurers from refusing to cover new children?
they could have a plan for whatever adults are enrolled, and even cover pregnancy and child birth, but what says they have to bring the progeny onto the existing policy?
unless the lying bastard geniuses that rammed through this abortion covered that hole, insurance companies would be wise to write all new policies that only cover the adult enrolling, and that specifically exclude any offspring, until they enroll themselves as adults.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/25/2010 @ 6:52 pmWatching Muron attempt to debate with those who not only have worked in the insurance industry but have actually performed surgery was highly entertaining, and Muron did not disappoint. Nothing but a partisan hack with delusions of grandeur, he’s a duplicitious skank.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 7:09 pmMyron is just regurgitating ignorant progressive talking points. He really has no clue. He just wants a government takeover of healthcare because he feels it is a right. He ignores the ample examples in other countries where this has not turned out well as well as within our own country where health insurance has essentially been turned into versions of ObamaCare already.
I especially loved this one about private insurers – “They have people whose job it is to look for services to deny.” Well, Myron, claims departments also approve claims. If the government takes over, who regulates the government? Check out the stats:
“According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%
In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that Medicare denied only 4% of claims—a big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior year’s high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%—an astounding 75% improvement—with similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.
Maybe there’s something to be said for the need to keep your customers satisfied in order to make that profit after all.”
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/shocker_medicare_has_a_higher_claim_denial_rate_than_private_sector_employe/
Damn greedy government denying all those claims! Educate yourself Myron. You’ve been watching too many Michael Moore movies. It’s rotted your brain.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/25/2010 @ 7:48 pmMyron is allergic to facts, and prefers Democratic fantasy. And that’s on the few occasions he’s competent enough to actually link to something that matches his claims …
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/25/2010 @ 7:51 pmFrom Myron’s #108:
“No. 99: Daley, insurance companies are for-profit. They have people whose job it is to look for services to deny. Insurance companies’ ultimate decision on care will be based on money.”
Like here in Minnesota? Where the three largest insurance providers (Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN, Medica, and HealthPartners) are all non-profits?
Blue Ox (ff919a) — 3/25/2010 @ 7:56 pmMyron #23:
The Senators did not have time to read, let alone understand, the health care bill before passing it last December:
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/25/2010 @ 8:17 pmdaley rocks called it exactly: the voice of Robert Gibbs. And so much of the Ellie Light sound, too.
It kills. Some day, what kids will hear about the evolution of ObamaCare. You can see how they laid out the phony townhalls, locked up the TV footage and whipped up a nice little timeline. All to see that kid dragged out on stage as a prop to watch the signing away of his future. And what is it with today’s marxists and ‘proof’? Why do they constantly roll out the soft tyranny and follow it up with sneers and taunts. (“I Won”) This b#stard wants a culture war and you know it. You’re setting the stage in your own helpful way by responding that someone upthread wants to “incite violence.” From a keyboard?
Ironically the tea parties have been honest, open and riot-free crowds, not counting the fake Garofalo actors trying to divert with the race card. Obama’s taunts are designed to incite the voters who put him in office. It’s not the hard left who gave this contemptible ingrate his chance to serve. 20% doesn’t get you Pennsylvania Avenue.
That we’re still playing this charade that the bill is about health care is likely the most provoking element of all. That this partisan ‘bill’ pieced together with threats, bribes and distractions isn’t a Soros mandate from the newly minted House of Fraud. You even say so yourself.
If you read the blogs, you know that Obama is hoping to muscle his way through and sort of wait for the anger to peak and disappear. I don’t think that’s in the cards, Myron.
Vermont Neighbor (0e568c) — 3/25/2010 @ 8:24 pmVN – We could all register to vote multiple times under multiple names with ACORN’s successor organizations and see what happens in November. But then again, liberals say actual voter fraud never happens, so why do it. Correction, they mean people have not been caught.
I do not advocate breaking the law.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/25/2010 @ 8:53 pmDAP- Don’t accept the premise.
Pardon me, (actually, don’t pardon me) but that sounds like lawyerese for “I won’t believe anything I don’t want to”. That is quite a stonewall, reminds me of the dwarves in “The Last Battle“, a very sad legacy.
And then you think you can claim, “Republicans are not interested in reforming health care.”
Myron, I DAP.
I don’t know if you quite ignorant, delusional, or just downright oppositional, as you readily dismiss things that you have no knowledge of.
– Do you want doctors to worry about ordering too many tests, so that you don’t get the head CT since you’re the third person this month complaining of severe headaches?
– I don’t think this will happen. Do government doctors behave this way now, the ones who provide Medicaid, Medicare, care for the military, Congress et al.? In short, D.A.P.
I don’t know if you are a fool or stupid. This does already happen now. We get reports for how many times we saw a patient in the last 6 months and get threatened if it is too far out of what “they” consider the norm. “DAP” all you want, you still have no clue.
–Do you think health care should be rationed by the federal government, de facto because of an overall limit of supply at least, if not by direct limitation of specific services?
– Health care is already rationed now, based on who can afford it. There is no system anywhere that does not ration care. So I’m indifferent.
Again, you know not of what you speak. Two people come into Mike K.’s hosp ER with appendicitis. Both will get operated on and treated the same way even though one is dirt poor and the other doesn’t have insurance because he has $10,000 cash in his pocket and an American Express card with a $100,000 limit on it. You blow this off by saying, “but you’re a doctor, you know people are human, you’re not like all of those other Republicans that want to see children go to bed hungry”. That’s a bunch of crap.
Care is rationed currently by the problem of access to care because of a shortage of apecialists, be patients rich or poor, and by the “hassle factor” the insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid, put in the way of doctors ordering what they want for a patient.
–Do you think the healthcare disparity in America should increase between those truly wealthy (or connected) and the rest of us?
– I don’t see how you can make the first argument above and believe the second. I don’t accept the premise of this argument at all.
Mr. Obama can spend who knows how much money taking his wife on a date to NYC while I can’t budget 1% of it for a date in town with my wife. There is a finite number of tickets to a broadway show, there are a finite number of seats in high priced restaurants. Those with money and power will get them. Same with anything else, including medical care.
–Do you think pharmaceutical companies that bring new drugs to market should be financially penalized for it?
– I don’t think life-saving drugs should be patented in the first place.
First, you skipped the question. I didn’t say anything about patent rights, and patent rights have nothing to do with the issue. If you want clarification so you can deal with the question intelligently, let me know.
–Do you think the further erosion of medicine as a profession will improve healthcare for anyone?
– I don’t accept the premise. Your post is full of dire predictions that you have no way of knowing will come to pass.
Your responses are ignorant and reveal you know virtually nothing on the subject as it stands at present, let alone predict future trends.
–Do you trust a government clerk or administrator with no medical training to tell your doctor what to do?
– D.A.P. (don’t accept the premise). It’s useful to keep in mind that an insurance hack (with no medical training) makes the decision now. An insurance hack who has a for-profit incentive to limit payouts for care.
Yes, an insurance hack that works for a private company that can be sued should they get too outrageous, as opposed to an agent of the fed. govt against whom you have no recourse (unless you have connections with the right people, currently from Chicago.)
–I’m not sure if that is really your view of the government’s role in health care, but that’s what you are getting.
– I don’t believe you. Further, the current system is not sustainable.
Whether you believe me or not makes no difference. If you think the current system is unsustainable, how do you you think a bigger system covering more patients will cost less and still give just as good of care?
IN CONCLUSION:
My view of the government’s role in healthcare is to “promote the general welfare”, and I think a government agency is rarely the best way to provide for the general welfare.
I agree, as most people do whether Dem or Repub, that the health system in the US needs some significant changs for improvement. I reject the idea that the only options are to pass ObamaCare and see what’s in it or do nothing.
In the tradition of our society and country, I do not consider “rights” to be granted by a government. “Rights” are things we already have and can only be taken away by illegitimate force. Life is a right. We have it, someone else can only take it. Freedom we have, it can only be taken.
Any thing we claim to be a right which is provided by another person(s) of necessity infinges on the right to liberty of the other. I have no right to demand that another person do something for me, unless the person has freely obligated himself/herself. I do not have a right to health care, to food, to a house.
The leftist notion is to demand the rights of the “common person”. This is done by the enforcement by self-appointed rulers.
The alternative notion is to realize we have rights and responsibilities. We nprotect the rights of all, and encourage the fulfillment of responsibilities. It is the responsibility of a civil society and a civil people to care for those in need among their midst.
To the degree Western Society reflects Judeo-Christian values, it is written that Jesus Christ did not consider His rights to be something to demand (which would have been legitimate), but rather chose to fulfill His responsibilities.
Of course, we read where Lucifer preferred to claim “rights” which were not his to claim. Saul Alinsky paid homage to Lucifer, and I imagine shared this view. Those who pay homage to Alinsky will have to speak for themselves.
Good night
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 3/25/2010 @ 9:38 pmPowerful comment, MD in Philly.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/25/2010 @ 9:44 pmNicely done MD in Philly. Of course Myron does not know what he is talking about. His “feelings guide him.
His rationing argument is cute but BS. Now, in a with a private market, we have price signals to help ration supply of health care goods and services. In a wholly government-controlled market, government bureaucrats will perform the function of rationing scarce items. Look how well that worked in communist countries.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/25/2010 @ 9:55 pmEither Myron will sulk for a while, and then post more cheerleading partisan nonsense in other threads, or he will say “nuh-uh” couched in what he perceives is a more intellectual tone.
But you are hitting the nail on the head. Myron knows very little outside his own field and has very little interest in learning more. That is because he knows what is best. Trouble is, he has has no experience and less genuine curiosity.
MD in Philly, that was a nicely done response. I doubt that Myron will spend any time or any research debating you.
This is because, again, he knows things. And the government knows what is best for Myron, and everyone.
Excuse me: this government. Again, Myron doesn’t understand that giving things up to government is not conditional on party affiliation. But you can’t blame him for thinking so. Hypocrisy is the New Democratic Party’s mainstay.
Eric Blair (21af67) — 3/25/2010 @ 10:29 pmMyron has support from another other person that agrees with him:
We were going in the wrong direction (/hand slaps head) — we should have been going backwards by about 50 years. Good thing President Obama is making that correction. Great minds think a like.
Hard to believe that many people would risk their lives and that of their families to transverse the open sea on homemade rafts and innertubes, to escape the Cuban paradise for a chance at refugee status in the US (you know, with all the great medical care and all).
Pons Asinorum (be2d18) — 3/25/2010 @ 10:44 pmThanks all for the kind words.
Whether Myron wants to continue the exchange or not, he gave an opportunity to point out a few things. He certainly could continue the “discussion” as long as he wants with profound reasoning such as “DAP”. I certainly agree that one can “DAP” at times appropriately and explain why, but closing eyes and sticking fingers in ears and saying “I don’t believe you, I don’t even know you are there” is a 3-year olds argument
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 3/26/2010 @ 6:23 amMD, you must know by now that you’re attempting to reason with a Bobo Doll of immense proportions. Muron has never demonstrated anything approaching good faith in any thread he’s posted in, and he’s not going to change. But I give you tons of credit for still trying, however hopeless it might be.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/26/2010 @ 8:44 amYes, Dmac. Originally I was giving a good faith attempt at engaging him at a level beyond the superficial talking points. Later I simply took the opportunity to discuss some various issues for the sake of those who might have been interested, and to exorcise some of my “irritation”.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 3/26/2010 @ 12:06 pmMD, I enjoyed reading it, so who cares if Myron decides to have a full discussion?
Many of the left don’t care about the details so much as momentum and victory and party control. But the details are still coming out, and I doubt the middle will blame the right for asking about fixing these new problems in November of all the even years until those problems are fixed.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 3/26/2010 @ 12:30 pmThanks, Dustin. As I said, I took the opportunity to share some ideas whether Myron wanted to stick around or not.
I have ambivalent feelings about how to handle trolls, as many do. Often I would simply like to ignore them. But then again, I hate to see nonsense preserved in black and white without being rebuted or rebuked.
I know not all people who lust for power and control on on the left, but it does seem that for the left perception and power is what is most important. Control the perception, control the people, and keep focus on the next 5-year plan without stopping to consider what happened with the last one. This continues until someone else co-opts the process for themselves or there is a great upheaval, or both.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 3/27/2010 @ 10:24 am