What we’re likely to see in the final form The bill is expected to cost taxpayers about $950 billion over 10 years, with the expense more than offset by new taxes and cuts in federal spending, particularly on Medicare, so that the legislation would reduce future deficits by more than $100 billion by 2019. |
The bill would require most Americans to obtain insurance, and would provide subsidies to help moderate-income people. |
It would add about 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, and over all is projected to reduce the number of uninsured by more than 30 million over 10 years. |
It would tighten regulation of insurers, banning the denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, for instance. |
| It would impose the new tax on high-cost employer-sponsored policies, and would increase the Medicare payroll tax for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000. And it would slow the growth in spending on Medicare.Read more at prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com |
‘Bout time somebody got after these guys. LOS ANGELES — Over the past 12 years, Josh Libresco’s health insurance premium has increased almost eight-fold for his family of four. |
The 54-year-old San Rafael resident is facing a 39 percent rate hike from Anthem Blue Cross on March 1 that will raise his premium from $858 to $1,192 a month. In 1998, his monthly premium was $151. |
Libresco was one of a number of Anthem policyholders who received a letter last week saying California’s largest for-profit health insurer plans to hike premiums on individual policies by as much as 39 percent. |
| Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius demanded specifics in a sternly-worded letter Monday, saying the insurer has “a responsibility to provide a detailed justification for these rate increases.”Read more at www.huffingtonpost.com |
“Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, one stood out from the rest.” PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year: ‘Death panels’ |
Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, one stood out from the rest. |
The claim set political debate afire when it was made in August, raising issues from the role of government in health care to the bounds of acceptable political discussion. In a nod to the way technology has transformed politics, the statement wasn’t made in an interview or a television ad. Sarah Palin posted it on her Facebook page. |
| Her assertion — that the government would set up boards to determine whether seniors and the disabled were worthy of care — spread through newscasts, talk shows, blogs and town hall meetings |
“Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”
(Newser)
–
President Obama may be pushing for Senate Democrats to keep working on health care reform, but Howard Dean has had enough. The former party chairman says Joe Lieberman’s success at weeding out the Medicare buy-in—which itself had replaced the public option—makes the bill worthless.
|
“This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate,” he tells a Vermont radio station. “Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.” Greg Sargent got an early peek at the interview for his Plumline blog.
|
It’s rationed by ability to pay - not need - and socialized by overcharging insured patients enough to cover costs for the un-insured. “We are … the only advanced democracy on Earth — the only wealthy nation — that allows (health care) hardship for millions of its people.” | Health care is already rationed and socialized |
| Rationing does not apply to emergency care |
The patient who presents for planned, scheduled health care gets a different reception. Those needing elective heart surgery, or joint repair, for example, are filtered carefully. Care is rationed by ability to pay. |
What is certain is that the hospital bill for the well-insured will be sufficiently high to cover expenses generated by poorly insured or uinsured patients. |
This explains a $15 aspirin, $10,000 to $15,000 antibiotic bills, and bills for heart surgery of $250,000 or more. We resist “socialized medicine” from the federal government while oblivious that we have embraced socialized medicine delivered -after profits - by the insurance industry. |
Rationing of medical care in a non-profit system should be based on society defining what services should be provided, not on restricting care on the basis of income, as in a profit based system. Read more at www.starnewsonline.com |
“In each case, the vast majority of political conservatives opposed them. They told us that businesses would be ruined, that the problems … would be worse than if we left things as they were, that implementing them would make us non-competitive, … that the good life as we know it would be gone if we were so foolish as to pass these pieces of legislation” What Do Health-Care Reform, the 40-Hour Work Week, Unemployment Insurance, the Minimum Wage, etc., Have in Common? |
| they were all brought to you be political progressives, they were all opposed by political conservatives, and they all are now viewed as fundamental presuppositions of a healthy society by virtually everyone. Okay, all but health-care reform |
| the list actually includes many, many more |
| —child labor laws, basic workplace safety rules, social security, Medicare, and so on |
| In each case, the vast majority of political conservatives opposed them. They told us that businesses would be ruined, that the problems resulting from implementing the initiatives would be worse than if we left things as they were, that implementing them would make us non-competitive, or, more generally, that the good life as we know it would be gone if we were so foolish as to pass these pieces of legislationRead more at blog.sojo.net |
Why do Senate Republicans need six weeks to debate and consider the legislation if they’re already determined to vote against it? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) argued last Sunday that Republicans deserve at least six additional weeks to consider health care reform before letting the bill come to a vote. But on Friday, his top lieutenant said the entire GOP has already made up its mind on the legislation. |
Appearing on Fox News Friday morning, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted that “every single Republican will oppose” even debating health care reform because “they know it will only get worse.” |
| Why do Senate Republicans need six weeks to debate and consider the legislation if they’re already determined to vote against it? |
And why, for that matter, are Senate Republicans complaining about a limited three-day window to read the legislation if they have already come to a final verdict on its contents? Read more at www.huffingtonpost.com |
Gracious. Who knew? Seems like it goes without saying.
In a rare appearance as a witness at a Senate hearing, the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, told the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that it should repeal a 1945 law that granted the insurance industry limited exemption to national antitrust laws by allowing states to regulate insurers.
|
The law, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, is often cited by Mr. Reid and other critics of the health insurance industry as a reason why coverage can be so expensive for many people. They say the law allows insurers to monopolize markets and fix prices in ways that are usually illegal. |
“Providing an exemption for insurance companies to antitrust laws has been anticompetitive and damaging to the American economy,” Mr. Reid continued. “Health insurance premiums have continued to rise at a rapid rate, forcing businesses to cut back on health insurance coverage and forcing many families to choose between health insurance and basic necessities.” Read more at prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com |
“there is a certain irony, and magic, in the fact that all the red states could simply opt out and screw themselves while the rest of us get healthy and save money with better care.”
Dems Discussing Public Option With Opt-Out Clause: The Silver Bullet?
|
| Although attacking the Canadian and European health care systems is a common tactic |
| During a hearing of the Special Committee on Aging |
| Republican Sen. Bob Corker |
| told Canada’s former Public Health Minister, Dr. Carolyn Bennett, that her country is “living off of us” because they set lower prices for health care and “all the innovation, all the technology breakthroughs just about take place in our country and we have to pay for it.” |
|
