So I think more information has come out about the new Obama Care, and I wanted to share some opinions about what I like and dislike. Here's part of a news article:
House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab.
The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
Health care overhaul is President Barack Obama's top domestic priority, and his goal is to slow rising costs and provide coverage to nearly 50 million uninsured Americans. Democratic leaders said they would push the measure through committee and toward a vote in the full House by month's end, while the pace of activity quickened on the other side of the Capitol.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wanted floor debate to begin a week from Monday. Other officials said that timetable was likely to slip. Even so, it underscored a renewed sense of urgency.
The House legislation unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats would slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid payments to medical providers. From big hospitals to solo physician practices, providers also would be held to account for quality care, not just ordering up tests and procedures. Insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage to the sick. The industry also would face stiff competition from a new government plan designed along the lines of Medicare.
The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations.
The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.
House leaders want to move quicklyWith Obama pressing Congress to act on health care this summer, House leaders want to move their bill quickly through three committees and to a floor vote before the August congressional recess. But a group of moderate and conservative Democrats has withheld support, and no Republican votes are expected. The House bill seemed unlikely to win broad backing in the Senate.
The House bill seemed unlikely to win broad backing in the Senate, where the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was expected to finish its version of the legislation Wednesday in what was looking to be a party-line vote. Another panel, the Senate Finance Committee, was striving to unveil a bill by the end of the week. But the outlook in the Senate remained uncertain.
Standing before a banner that read "Quality Affordable Care for the Middle Class," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the moment "historic and transformative." The bill would provide "stability and peace of mind" by braking costs and guaranteeing coverage, she said.
"We are going to accomplish what many people felt wouldn't happen in our lifetime," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., one of the main sponsors. Obama issued a statement hailing the measure.
Speaking in Warren, Mich., where he was promoting new spending for community colleges, Obama anticipated a congressional confrontation over health care.
"There's going to be a major debate over the next three weeks," he said, deviating from his prepared text. "And don't be fooled by folks trying to scare you saying we can't change the health care system.We have no choice but to change the health care system because right now it's broken for too many Americans."
Separately, Obama spoke by telephone with Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican viewed as critical to the fate of bipartisan negotiations in the Senate.
Democrats said the income tax increase would apply only to the top 1.2 percent of households, those who earn about one-quarter of all income. The wealthiest 4 percent of small business owners would be among them. The tax would start at 1 percent for couples making $350,000 and individuals earning $280,000, ramp up to 1.5 percent above $500,000 of income, and jump to 5.4 percent for those earning above $1 million.
The tax would raise an estimated $544 billion over 10 years.
Things I like: Health care does need to be changed, and it's been largely ignored for a very long time. I have heard a lot of horror stories about people who could not afford coverage and then had some medical condition or accident hit them and they had no choice but to file for bankruptcy. So I applaud the democrats for taking on the issue. I also like how the new system will be a lot like that of France's with a couple of differences. In France everybody pays 10% and everyone is insured by the federal government to a basic level with option to purchase additional private health insurance. In this system only the rich pays for it. My feeling would be to tax some behaviors that lead to health problems much like the tobacco tax, say a junk food tax. I believe that would raise far more money than just taxing the rich and also place the burden more on the shoulders of the people that would benefit from the new system. I also like how people with preexisting conditions will now be able to get coverage.
Things I don't like: I don't feel very good about enforcing a penalty tax of $1,000 a year on people who elect not to get coverage. I don't like placing almost the entire burden of the poor's health care just on the wealthy. I don't like how fast they want to shove this through the system. I don't know about spending even more money during a recession. And I'm sure a lot of you have a lot more objections than that. And I'd like to hear about them. And if you can think of any positives at all I'd like to hear those too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Pros: You're going to be a dad soon!! Totally cool and exciting, wish I could be there.
Health care pros: I read up on it (on NPR's website), and health care in France isn't as bad as I thought it would have been, largely because they implement as many free market forces as possible.
But there are some cons as well: The median salary of a French doctor is $55,000/yr. I know money isn't everything, but 8-10 years of intense, graduate-level education only to make $55,000/yr? Granted, the government (French taxpayers) pays for their schooling, but still, that's a LONG time to train to make what many U.S. undergraduates average after finishing college. So Creighton, would you want the U.S. to model France in this aspect? Also, in addition to many other taxes, 21% of a French worker's paycheck goes JUST to the health care fund.
Other cons: you already hit the big ones. The negligent pace at which the dems want to ram this thing through. You've gotta be crazy if you buy into their lie that if it doesn't get passed before the Aug. recess, the sky will fall (remember the stimulus package?? good thing they rushed that, it clearly did wonders for the economy, as advertised)! It's obvious that this is a political move. The Dems know their clock is ticking and can see their poll numbers sliding. This is 1992-94 all over again, and I think it will come back to haunt them. If we are going to change health care by spending ANOTHER 1.6 trillion (to extend coverage to only a fourth of those currently uninsured? Is the juice even worth the squeeze?), let's at least try to get it right! Unlike the first stimulus, let's have some meaningful debate, time to actually read the bill, etc. That would be nice - our lawmakers actually reading the laws they pass! Even Sen. Schumer said, "the devil is in the details."
And, as you have pointed out, the government is redistributing the wealth of the rich and small business owners - during a recession no less - to pay for this. Remember my Robin Hood post? For an insightful article outlining 9 more reasons why this "surtax is disastrous," check out:
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/07/15/9-reasons-pelosis-healthcare-surtax-is-disastrous/
And for a very helpful (wink, wink) flow chart depicting the house health care bill, check this out:
http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
I also have another comment regarding the use of the tax code to 'incentivize' behavior, but I'll save it for later, this comment is too long already, sorry.
Creighton, good luck with Anna's delivery, and congratulations!!
Wow is all I have to say. I can't believe there are so many penalties for not going along with this. You get taxed $1,000 a year if you don't use it and business owners get taxed 2.5% if they don't use it. To me that seems a little unfair. We don't need to bribe or blackmail or penalize anybody. I also love the flow chart. I think anything that looks like that should be automatically sent to the trash! It's worse than the tax code and we all know how messed up that is. How are they going to decipher that in such a short time frame? I think such a huge overhaul should really be given the time it deserves.
As for your idea to have a junk food tax, I'm not sure how that will work. Would you, a healthy male, want to pay a tax on your Mountain Dew to pay for somebody else's health care? Just a thought. I don't think taxing junk food is going to go very far in solving our healt problems. Not all are related to junk food anyway, many are hereditary.
I also don't like how this is going to cost us so much money. It seems that our debt is growing exponentially without any visible benefits. Unemployment is still rising after the stimulus pkg was passed. The same thing will probably happen with health care.
On a good note, I am glad Congree is at least making the effort to do SOMETHING about the health care problems. They have been ignored for too long. I'm just not sure they will get the solution right. I'm also happy that Obama "deviated from his prepared text," ha ha :) We're excited to meet our new niece here in a couple weeks!
I honestly hope for the good of the nation this doesn't pass. I just don't like how the dems are shoving all this legislation through while they have the majority. Any promise to make bipartisan legislation has been largely ignored I think, which disappoints me a little. So while at least Barack threw out a decent first pitch, I'm not liking this trillions of spending in 6 months business. Government was set up for checks and balances and I don't know if there's anyone to put the dems in check right now. On the bright side millions more people will have health care, and I've seen the bad side of people who do not have it. And yes I would happily pay a small tax on my mountain dew as long as it wasn't outrageous. The numbers I've heard thrown around is like a cent per 12 oz of soda, which for me is totally doable, but would raise a ton of money once you add all that up. And Devin you got me, I'll admit, I don't want to spend the next 8 years of my life in school only to make 50k a year. And I understood that in France you pay 10% and your employer matches another 10% but that still is potentially 20% that could have gone to you. And thank you for the congrats, we are just patiently waiting Anna's arrival, hopefully we don't have to wait much longer and especially much longer after the due date.
A one cent tax is definitely doable. It won't do a whole lot to persuade people to quit their junk food habits, but at least they will be raising some money. I just hope it doesn't get to the point where the government is putting taxes on everything just so they can raise some money to chisel away at that debt they are so rapidly building.
My two bits:
1. The big principle introduced by Pres. Obama during the campaign and apparently swallowed whole by the Democrats is that health care is a "right"? If so, what kind of "right" is it? The God-given inalienable kind mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? Personally, I don't believe health care is a "right" or that we should pretend that it is. Social Security was a legislated "right" and, wow, that's worked out, hasn't it?
2. The major cost I see is in the jobs that will be lost. It does not take a behavioral economist to predict that this reform will "incentivize" employers to lay people off, or switch employees to part time, or to do their work through independent contractors, leaving those who used to be employed to pay their own $1,000 fines.
Something does need to change on health care. The current cure is worse than the disease, though.
This piggy backs on to Dad's (Chris's) comments.
First, to hear our political leaders spinning government health care as a "right" clearly shows that we live in what Neal A. Maxwell called "a world in which there is a growing expectation of effortless entitlements where people feel the government will take care of everything." Sadly, too many take the politicians' bait that they will give you something for nothing if you vote for them. Free this, free that . . . Unfortunately, as the non-partisan CBO has reported, "something for nothing" certainly isn't the case with this reform, costing 1.6 trillion over the next decade. (And NO Joe Biden, you don't "have to keep spending money to keep from going bankrupt." What kind of a backwards world is he living in?)
Second, Pres. Obama often trumpets that if the public option reform passes, health care costs will automatically go down because the private insurers will have extra competition. While that may sound nice and economically logical on the surface, it is fundamentally untrue. Why? Because if government health care passes, this will be a one-horse race. And that one horse will win every time because the government has the coercive tools to bully all the other horses completely off the track.
For example, the bill includes a "pay or play" provision, which leaves small business one of two options: (1) pay an 8% payroll penalty; or (2) pay the government premium for all full-time employees. As Chris points out, this means many businesses will replace their full-timers with part-timers, or contract out to avoid the penalty. Those who can't will have to shut down, unable to pay either the penalty or the government premiums. What a great idea during a recession - hammer the small businesses, the engine that drives the economy.
Added competition reducing the costs? This race was never fair to begin with. It never is when the government can inject its horse with our tax dollars (steroids) and squeeze out the other helpless horses in the private sector with penalties and ultimatums.
I agree there is a lot that needs to be done to improve health care in the U.S. However, I also don't believe it's as "broken" as people think.
The biggest thing to come out of this legislation is making sure EVERYONE in America has insurance. That's about 47 million people. Nothing in the bill says anything about increasing the number of doctors to care for those 47 million people. So the same number of doctors (or maybe less if govt is going to dictate how much they'll get reimbursed for stuff ala Medicare) will have to treat all those additional patients. If you think your time wasted in a waiting room is bad now, it will likely get worse.
The tax that govt wants to impose on companies that already provide insurance to their employees is going to make them not want to offer it, and the insurance companies won't be able to compete with the govt, so slowly all Americans will be forced onto the govt rolls, and we'll end up with a one-payer system like Canada. How are things working up there so far? Not too good.
Devin, this is just for you. Sorry, no political insight right now. I don't know if you've heard about Joseph, I'm sure you have by now, but I just wrote about it.
Morgantown. They were on their way back to their hotel and the driver dozed off for a second. I've actually befriended him. He's a great guy whose trying to better himself. Who knows? Maybe I can bring the Gospel to him.
I'm still having a really hard time wrapping my head around it. BUT, Veronica started a memorial for him on facebook. I miss him. It's taken me almost a month to even get back into FB and the blog. Too many memories. I love him so much, but at least I know we'll all be together again. I think his favorite story about you involved a trip to Galveston with the scout....??? I LAUGHED SO HARD AT THAT ONE!
Post a Comment