U.S. passes "historic" healthcare bill

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm curious about these numbers (15% of gross income etc). They sound a tad high. How is that worked out?

It's from the Recto Absurdum database.

CBO report regarding HR 3200.

I realize, yes, the numbers the CBO publishes are generally absurd understatements of how much things cost and overstatements of cost savings, but that's because lawmakers set the assumptions that the CBO must follow in drawing their conclusions. However, when it's a Democrat drafted bill in a Democrat controlled government, the CBO statements are essentially admissions against interest because the Democrats control the assumptions. When the CBO comes out with numbers, that is, realize that it's based on Democrat assumptions.

[Trolldor]

You really don't understand American politics, do you?
You think most of those people give a shit about the AMerican public? They will oppose something simply because they don't like the party, or the individual who proposed it. They will sell out for money, they will deliberately work against the interests of the American people to further their own companies, or those of their friends or campaign contributors.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've seen endless wild speculation about this bill. Most of it comes from thin air as far as I can tell. Not accusing the Repugnicans of lying, you understand, I just thinking they're lying out their ass.

And I'm still waiting for them to come up with something better.

Look - the $43,000 and over number is straight from the bill. It's not wild speculation. It's not anything from the Republicans. It's 400% of the poverty level. Nobody gets government assistance who makes over 400% of the poverty level.

That would seem to be something very basic about this bill that anyone who says they "support" it would be familiar with. Criminy....

OMG, NO!!!!!

No assistance for anyone who makes over 400% of poverty????

Oh...wait...there are yearly and lifetime caps over what can be charged now...

LOL!

Yes -no assistance for anyone who makes over 400% of poverty. Think, McFly, think!

I'm going to type slowly, so you'll be sure to understand.

This bill will insure, they say, 32 million more people.

17 million or so of those 32 million make over $50,000 a year.

Therefore, more than 1/2 of those that are being "covered" must pay for 100% of their own insurance coverage that they "could not afford" (since we're told that the need for this is because people can't afford insurance).

So, take it from the top: 32 million people can't afford insurance now. So the government is going to make them buy it. And, everyone making more than 43,000 a year will pay for their own insurance, plus cost sharing, to the tun of $7,600 a year average! 17 million make over 50,000 a year, and obviously a whole bunch more make between 44,000 and 50,000, so they too will get no assistance.

That's what we're overhauling the insurance system to the tune of $2.5 trillion over 10 years for?

Get it yet? Or are you folks just going to cover your ears and go: "la! la! la! la! la! - give me my free insurance! I know it's going to be free! Oh, yes!" click heels three times "I know the insurance is going to be free - even if they tell me flat out in the text of the bill that it's not free -- I know somehow it will be free..."

In addition, something on the order of 10-12 million of the uninsured are people eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid already, but have simply not enrolled for some reason.

[Valden]

In addition, something on the order of 10-12 million of the uninsured are people eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid already, but have simply not enrolled for some reason.

Ahem...

From Wiki-

Medicaid is a joint federal-state program that provides health insurance coverage to certain categories of low-income individuals, including children, pregnant women, parents of eligible children, and people with disabilities. Medicaid was created to help low-income individuals who fall into one of these eligibility categories "pay for some or all of their medical bills."

Having a limited income is one of the primary requirements for Medicaid eligibility, but poverty alone does not qualify a person to receive Medicaid benefits unless they also fall into one of the defined eligibility categories. According to the CMS website, "Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups."

There are a number of Medicaid eligibility categories; within each category there are requirements other than income that must be met. These other requirements include, but are not limited to, age, pregnancy, disability, blindness, income and resources, and one's status as a U.S. citizen or a lawfully admitted immigrant. Special rules exist for those living in a nursing home and disabled children living at home. A child may be covered under Medicaid if she or he is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. A child may be eligible for Medicaid regardless of the eligibility status of his or her parents or guardians. Thus, a child can be covered by Medicaid based on his or her individual status even if his or her parents are not eligible. Similarly, if a child lives with someone other than a parent, he or she may still be eligible based on his or her individual status.

Gov - Medicaid

Many groups of people are covered by Medicaid. Even within these groups, though, certain requirements must be met. These may include your age, whether you are pregnant, disabled, blind, or aged; your income and resources (like bank accounts, real property, or other items that can be sold for cash); and whether you are a U.S. citizen or a lawfully admitted immigrant. The rules for counting your income and resources vary from state to state and from group to group. There are special rules for those who live in nursing homes and for disabled children living at home.

In general, you should apply for Medicaid if you have limited income and resources. You must match one of the descriptions below. (Even if you are not sure whether you qualify, if you or someone in your family needs health care, you should apply for Medicaid and have a qualified caseworker in your state evaluate your situation.)

Pregnant Women

Apply for Medicaid if you think you are pregnant. You may be eligible if you are married or single. If you are on Medicaid when your child is born, both you and your child will be covered.

Children and Teenagers

Apply for Medicaid if you are the parent or guardian of a child who is 18 years old or younger and your family's income is limited, or if your child is sick enough to need nursing home care, but could stay home with good quality care at home. If you are a teenager living on your own, the state may allow you to apply for Medicaid on your own behalf or any adult may apply for you. Many states also cover children up to age 21.

Person who is Aged, Blind, and/or Disabled

Apply if you are aged (65 years old or older), blind, or disabled and have limited income and resources. Apply if you are terminally ill and want to get hospice services. Apply if you are aged, blind, or disabled; live in a nursing home; and have limited income and resources. Apply if you are aged, blind, or disabled and need nursing home care, but can stay at home with special community care services. Apply if you are eligible for Medicare and have limited income and resources.

Other Situations

Apply if you are leaving welfare and need health coverage. Apply if you are a family with children under age 18 and have limited income and resources. (You do not need to be receiving a welfare check.) Apply if you have very high medical bills, which you cannot pay (and you are pregnant, under age 18 or over age 65, blind, or disabled).

Lets say I get paid $7.24 an hour, which is the min wage for Colorado.
I would still not qualify for Medicaid, as I don't fall under any of the categories for Colorado.

However, under the new reform bill, I would.

So, take it from the top: 32 million people can't afford insurance now. So the government is going to make them buy it. And, everyone making more than 43,000 a year will pay for their own insurance, plus cost sharing, to the tun of $7,600 a year average! 17 million make over 50,000 a year, and obviously a whole bunch more make between 44,000 and 50,000, so they too will get no assistance.

Your numbers seem off. The top fine for not getting any insurance would be $2,085 a year, regardless of how much they make (for families) while for individuals it would be only 2.5% of their income, which is also less then what they would be paying for private insurance. So really, they can always just not buy insurance, and instead just pay the fine.

*

The penalty will be phased in, starting at $95 or 1 percent of income in 2014, whichever is higher, and rising to $695 or 2.5 percent of income in 2016. But families would not pay more than $2,085.
*

American Indians don’t have to buy insurance. Those with religious objections or a financial hardship can also avoid the requirement. And if you would pay more than 8 percent of your income for the cheapest available plan, you will not be penalized for failing to buy coverage.
*

Those who are exempt, or under 30, can buy a policy that only pays for catastrophic medical costs. It must allow for three primary care visits a year as well.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You know, if the Constitution came up for a vote right now there would be 50 little countries where the US previously existed.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you make USD35k~43k/yr, you're not going to the soup line over this.

Never said it would...but, you will be forced to spend a lot more money on health insurance than you do now, which is the opposite of one of the things that Obama said he was trying to do here.

This bill will help a lot of people, including millions of children whose only sin is being born into a poor family.

Bull - fucking - shit. Children are already fucking covered 100% without any issue -- Medicaid - SCHIP - etc. The current health care bill (soon to be law) has nothing whatsoever to do with "saving the chill-run."

That must be why the US has a higher infant mortality rate than all of Western Europe.

Tell me, do you always talk out of your ass?

Talk out of my ass? What are you, four years old? More than 80% of all "uninsured" children are now eligible for some type of publicly-subsidized coverage (and if they visit a hospital or medical facility for care, they would be enrolled right there). That's a bleeding fact. Are you even from the US? If not, then at least educate yourself on the system before you criticize it. SCHIP provides health care coverage for families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but are not offered or cannot afford private coverage. States provide coverage for uninsured children under 18 with their parent's incomes up to 43,000 a year presently.

Think about that for a second. The Democrats who wrote the new law think that if you make over 43,000 a year you can afford your own insurance, because that's where they cut off the fucking government assistance! Right NOW children of parents making 43,000 and under can get their kids covered for nothing for SCHIP.

But, of course, it's so emotionally appealing to claim you are "saving the chill-run..." But, go back to your reverie, my friend, and rub another one out for your hero.

Is a little compassion for the poor out of the question?

No. However, Obama said health insurance would be more affordable. It ain't going to be. It's going to be more expensive. Obama said it would not be signed into law if it would raise the deficit. It will raise the deficit.

Yes, of course, YOU know better than the CBO...

The CBO says NOW that insurance will be more expensive, and Democrat Senators have acknowledged that fact.

The CBO said in the fall, reviewing HR 3200, that it would not reduce the deficit. The CBO says NOW that it comes in just about break-even, BUT that's based on the assumption given to them by the Democrats that the "doctor fix" is not part of the health care reform (about $300 billion dollars), that plus the fact that the CBO was forced to double count various items of "savings" demonstrates clearly that the real effect of the reform is to markedly, and dramatically, increase the deficit.

Compassion for the poor my ass. The poor in the US get Medicaid for free. The disabled can get Medicare and social security benefits. Children are covered by Medicaid and SCHIP.

Well, that's a happy lie. You have to be DIRT poor to get medicaid, and I mean, fucking eating goddamn dog food for dinner poor.

You have to be poor to get Medicaid. That's right. But, you don't have to be poor for your kids to get SCHIP - you can get SCHIP up to the median family income in the United States.

And, remember - the current bill requires people to pay for their own insurance if they make over 1.33% of the poverty level. They will get "some" assistance above that level, scaling down as income rises to $43,000, and above that level - nothing at all.

A lot of hardworking Americans cannot afford health insurance and did without until now.

Once again, you keep forgetting the real numbers. 17 million of the 32 million who will be insured by this daft proposal are making over $50,000 a year. About 20 million or so make above $43,000 a year and will get no government assistance at all. NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. So, we're talking about 12 million people, who will get "some" assistance from this plan. The stupidity of this plan is that we could just fucking buy those 12 million people their insurance in full, and it would be 100 times cheaper than this boondoggle overhaul.

But all you say is "it'll increase the deficit".....waaaa....waaaa...

It will.

Which is more important? Saving lives or your own political ideology of fiscal conservatism?

False choice. This new law will not save lives.

But, I'm all for raising the cutoff to qualify for Medicaid an SCHIP. Let's make it 250% of poverty. Far cheaper than this monstrosity....

Or is your third car and country-club membership more important?

Giant red herring, that. How about, a single guy making $44,000 being able to buy insurance for $2400 a year (no problem) now, and instead being asked to shell out $5300 (average per CBO estimate) once the law takes effect, plus shell out an additional $2300 in "cost sharing?" I guess that guy has to give up his country club, cars and boats, right?

No one making $44,000 has to pay that, now or ever. If you do, I feel sorry for you because you are financially incompetent. I make more than that (a lot more) and pay less (a lot less).

Are you kidding me? You're Mr. CBO, right? That $5300 number comes from a CBO report estimating average premiums - single individual making $44,000 a year would pay $5300 on average, according to the CBO, for their own insurance.

You pay a lot less NOW. You WILL pay more. You get NO assistance under this bill if you make more than 44,000 a year and are single. You will be required to buy health insurance and it will be more expensive than you pay now, by far. But, you like the idea of paying more anyway. So you ought to be happy.

[mozg]

If you make USD35k~43k/yr, you're not going to the soup line over this. This bill will help a lot of people, including millions of children whose only sin is being born into a poor family. Is a little compassion for the poor out of the question?

There's already a state-run program in existence in every state that provides low or no cost health insurance to any child who isn't already covered by some other form of health insurance. It's called CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program), and there's no income restriction as far as parents not qualifying to have their children covered by it because they earn too much.

It does require them to actually fill out a form to register for it, but I can totally see how that might be too hard.

As far as 'compassion for the poor', I prefer to make my charitable contributions where I see fit rather than have the government and special interest groups spend my money freely as if they had earned it themselves. Exactly what percentage of my paycheck am I supposed to cheerfully hand over to the government as if they're entitled to it?

[Coito ergo sum]

?

It's nearly 1 a.m. here, so I'm not going to try to go point-by-point. All I can say is that I grew up poor. If our family's income went over a certain line, no more Medicaid. And I mean that line is very thin. The old system enouraged people to stay poor rather than cross that line.

How, exactly, does that change? Medicaid still exists. People are just forced to buy health insurance if they make above the 133% of the poverty line. They get "some" assistance on a descending sliding scale on up to 400% of the poverty line. Then, those making over $43,000 get pounded in the ass in order to pay for a bunch of other people's free health care. So, a guy who breaks his balls to go to school, get a decent job and make 45,000 or 50,000 a year at a professional job, like an engineer or accountant, gets fleeced.

And, you know what? Lots of us grew up "poor." My parents separated cash in different envelopes each month when I was a kid and paid the bills. They sacrificed, and said "no" to many requests on our part. We were given socks, underwear, hats and gloves along with Christmas presents to make it look like we had more to open. The one thing that my parents gave to me when I graduated high school though, the most valuable thing, was a sense of self-reliance. I would hate to have the sense of entitlement that some people have these days.

Hey, great, you made it.

What you don't get is that a lot of what got you to here was plain old LUCK.

Not your skill. Not you being an awesome human being. But just LUCK.

Some people don't have it.

So what? I never said some people aren't lucky. Do you have a a problem paying attention? The point the other bloke and I were discussing was not who was the best at pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, but rather whether the new system is any better at not "keeping people down" than the "old system."

Cross the line, and no more help from the gummit. Suddenly a broken leg could bankrupt you, well before your annual income climbed to $35~43k. Alternatively, you could seek unreported income, which always ran the risk of landing your poor ass in jail. A lot of options there. The safe bet under the old system was to remain safely poor so that the gummit would take care of you. Good night, and I hope I haven't created any ill-will by stating my viewpoint.

And, nothing changes with this new reform. It merely increases the welfare state, and places additional burdens on those who make the mistake of obtaining a modicum of income for themselves. This is not a case of soaking people who make $250,000 a year and buy yachts. This is a case of soaking a guy or gal who makes $45,000 or $50,000, and handing over a chunk of his or her money to pay for someone else's health insurance. Like it or not - and it's fair enough that a person likes it or doesn't - that's what it is.

You need to actually read the bill and not Fox News Epic Fail. It doesn't soak anyone.

You're the one who obviously has no idea what they're talking about. Stop getting your talking points from the DailyKos and AlterNet. I hope you're not American. I can understand your ignorance of what goes on here if you are outside the country. I wouldn't even expect you to know all the facts. If you are American, though....

[Coito ergo sum]

Because of Republicans and dumbass Democrats who disagree that all Americans deserve cover and what to do everything they can to Sabotage it.

They try to get rid of every deficit-reducing measure, and then when the deficit goes up they say "See, see! We told you!"

Really? The Republicans and "dumbass Democrats" tried to get rid of every deficit reducing measure? Like what, pray tell?

And, I'll head you off at the pass:

1. The public option was not a deficit reducing measure - the CBO reports regarding HR 3200 stated specifically that the deficit would be increased by HR 3200 which was the bill with the public option in it.
2. The law became, according to the CBO, deficit reducing ONLY because they removed the "doctor fix" ($300,000,000,000) from the health reform legislation and put it in another separate law that the CBO was told not to consider, AND because the CBO was told to double-count certain "savings" assumptions in the law.

Now, go - please list all the myriad of deficit-reducing measures that were supposed to be in the plan, but aren't -- heck list your top 5.

[Martok]

Well, of course it's a huge defeat. It's a huge defeat not just for conservatives, but for anyone who opposed the health care "reform."

And that would be conservatives. Sure liberals aren't thrilled with the way bill turned out - Far far too many republican ideas in it - but its a start.

Besides, republicans have been wrong on just about everything since 2000 that I really can't take any conservative seriously when they bitch and moan about health care reform. There's a nine out of ten chance they're going to be wrong about that to.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, of course it's a huge defeat. It's a huge defeat not just for conservatives, but for anyone who opposed the health care "reform."

And that would be conservatives.

And libertarians, moderates and independents. Before the bill passed it was opposed by 59% of the population. That's a very healthy majority of opposition.

Sure liberals aren't thrilled with the way bill turned out - Far far too many republican ideas in it - but its a start.

Republican ideas in it? The Republican ideas were ignored.

Besides, republicans have been wrong on just about everything since 2000 that I really can't take any conservative

There are conservative Democrats, and liberal Republicans, although they are minorities in both parties.

seriously when they bitch and moan about health care reform.

Reasonably oppose.

There's a nine out of ten chance they're going to be wrong about that to.

Perhaps, but for me, I did not oppose it because of anything the Republican Party said. I've never been, in my entire life, a registered Republican. Ever. I researched the issues on my own, and leaned towards receiving information from those who supported the bill. I think the only way a person can support the bill that passed is to be supportive of it for the larger issue of getting "something" passed and worry about fixing it later, or to not really understand what is in this bill. I, for one, do not think it is a good enough bill to be that "something." I think it's worse than nothing, and a step in the wrong direction, and a monumental waste of money.

[Wumbologist]

And libertarians, moderates and independents. Before the bill passed it was opposed by 59% of the population. That's a very healthy majority of opposition.

After a year of tiresome debate over the issue, the loss of the public option, and widespread disinformation such as "death panels" and "rationing", it's not surprising. Last year, 55% were in favor of "major reform" of the health care system.

[Martok]

Republican ideas in it? The Republican ideas were ignored.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... h_car.html

http://www.physiciansnews.com/2010/03/03/3052/

[Coito ergo sum]

And libertarians, moderates and independents. Before the bill passed it was opposed by 59% of the population. That's a very healthy majority of opposition.

After a year of tiresome debate over the issue, the loss of the public option, and widespread disinformation such as "death panels" and "rationing", it's not surprising. Last year, 55% were in favor of "major reform" of the health care system.

That was when the promises were being bandied about about how the insurance would be "cheaper." Remember when it was supposed to save everybody $2500 on their annual insurance bill? LOL That, of course, is long gone, because they couldn't keep up the charade that it would reduce the cost of insurance.

That was also when the promise was that it would reduce the deficit. It won't, and everybody with 1/2 a brain knows it won't.

Then people got sick of the "you're going to get it whether you like it or not" attitude of Pelosi, Reid and Obama, and became disgusted by the back-room deals and payoffs. Frankly, if that behavior was engaged in by the previous administration some of you folks would have been calling for impeachment.

You talk about "disinformation?" This thing was sold on disinformation.

Rationing is in the nature of a nationalized health program. When their aren't enough resources to go around, decisions have to be made as to what services can be had by whom. The administration never denied that rationing wold occur. Their response to those allegations was that rationing decisions go on now. So, it wasn't "disinformation" about rationing. Both sides were actually correct - yes there will be rationing, but of course, there are scarce resources now so the free market does the rationing by means of price, supply and demand.

The death panels were just a scary name for something that is actually in the bill. It was the "advanced care planning" provision: http://www.lifenews.com/bio2916.html There actually is a panel in the bill that will make decisions about what expensive services will be available to older people and what won't. That is just flat out true. Of course, it's not a "death panel" in the sense of an individual appearing before a panel to plead for grannie's life, and then they pass thumbs up or down. So, sure, to that extent the death panel allegation was a fabrication - the implication was wrong.

[Martok]

Then people got sick of the "you're going to get it whether you like it or not" attitude of Pelosi, Reid and Obama, and became disgusted by the back-room deals and payoffs. Frankly, if that behavior was engaged in by the previous administration some of you folks would have been calling for impeachment.

The previous administration used deceit and they did bully people to get their way. The current Senate parliamentarian replaced the last one cause the republicans didn't like his decisions. As for backroom deals Cheney did them with energy companies.

The death panels were just a scary name for something that is actually in the bill. It was the "advanced care planning" provision: http://www.lifenews.com/bio2916.html There actually is a panel in the bill that will make decisions about what expensive services will be available to older people and what won't. That is just flat out true. Of course, it's not a "death panel" in the sense of an individual appearing before a panel to plead for grannie's life, and then they pass thumbs up or down. So, sure, to that extent the death panel allegation was a fabrication - the implication was wrong.

You're using a god loving right to life website as a source???

Needless to say, death panels are a myth. In fact it was considered the biggest lie of 2009.

Leave it to Sarah Palin to be part of that lie.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... th-panels/