Healthy Benefits Act of 2009Posted Monday, September 21, 2009, at 10:50 AM
The new Baucus Healthy Benefits Act of 2009 while considered the most moderate, it now has more than 500 amendments proposed to be considered tomorrow. From the beginning it got no Republican support and many Dems didn't support it either. As of today, there is no public option ( a plus) but bringing back the public option is being considered. I read it the document and boy, was that fun. In my previous blog, I reported the bones of the Baucus plan. Since reading it, I don't see much more and since there will be amendments attached, it will not even be what it is right now. but I will explain my take on this plan.
This reform plan has some positive points. First, it cost less and "on paper" would generate funds to lower the cost. 2nd there is the promise that you are covered regardless of pre-existing conditions. 3rd. It drops the "public option" and 4th it starts opening the doors for purchasing insurance across state line. Now here are the negative points, in my not-so-humble opinion: * HUGE FAILURE-CLEARLY EXPANDS SIZE OF GOV'T. * Fails to maintain the Obama promise of no tax increases & the promised annual $2500 decrease in health care premium costs for a typical family since this plan imposes new fees on drugs and medical devices and a high cost insurance excise tax. * Forces businesses to cover or pay up to $400 per worker. This will effect us all since the employers will have to lay-off support staff, cut wages, employ less people and/or raise the prices for their products or services. Another big flaw is that this tax penalty is based on families, not individuals which would cause employers to not want to hire sole family income earners. (Sorry to all the Moms who are trying to stay home to raise their own children-you're screwed) We will all pay for this, especially our children. Furthermore, your employer would have to have your private information in order to know what your family income is, therefore giving the employer the ability to either not hire you, if already hired, then they can apply pressure on sole earners to influence their spouse to get a job and leave the childcare up to daycare or find a reason to fire or lay off that sole earner. * Enforces a 100% tax on health insurance whose value exceeds 13% of income. Employer provides insurance-employee required to take the plan-employee gets a tax credit if cost exceeds 13% of income and then employer is assessed a tax that matches that credit. * That tax assessment mentioned above would turn out to be substantially higher than the tax penalty for not providing insurance, applying only to workers of low-income families. "The incentives for the employer are clear: offer less-generous health insurance to lower the amount of the tax, drop insurance completely if the tax is lower that way, and either cut the pay of the lowest-paid employees to make up for the tax or lay off workers from low-income families and avoid the tax completely, or both. The net result is unambiguous: higher taxes, lower incomes, and job losses for low-income working families." (Heritage. Org) * Huge BAD thing-heavily fining all individuals and families who fail to comply up to $3,800 per family. When filing Fed. Taxes, you are asked information about your insurance and if none, you will be fined. This will add significant administrative costs on IRS. This will also require the IRS to report personal income data which reduces privacy protections. * Cuts payments for Medicaid Advantage causing many seniors to be forced off their current plans due to increased premiums. I just don't see anything good coming from healthcare reform since anything positive is overshadowed by huge loss of freedoms. I have tried and tried to see the positives but I have failed. Sorry, folks! I can't be swayed nor will I conform to keep the peace. For those keeping track-off work-my opinion on my own time) Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
I've lived in Mtn Home for over 20 years. I love my city and my country. Since I am a writer, my decision to blog here seemed appropriate. I enjoy acting so I've been blessed with the opportunity to work on some independent films and with Prairie Dog Productions and Bogus Creek Ranch. I hope that something I have to write about has some value for others or just amuses someone.
Hot topics Mayfield? Here's my thought.(5 ~ 10:39 AM, Aug 18)
Watch myi48 short film
FINALLY USAMA BIN LADEN DEAD
i48 Film Festival
Pakistan, the Lying Nation
|
Email link
Read comments (21)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mountainhomenews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Change you can believe in! Yes Kim, that was a "fun" read huh (for those of us who can read that is)? FLUSH!!!
"Enforces a 100% tax on health insurance whose value exceeds 13% of income. Employer provides insurance-employee required to take the plan-employee gets a tax credit if cost exceeds 13% of income and then employer is assessed a tax that matches that credit."
This is the eye-opener for me. I need to do more research but on the surface it seems circular. Besides the employer-employee r'ship there will be other ripple effects. These ripple effects will occur because of the shrinking wallet. Decreasing one's disposable income can lead to other detrimental activities. One can figure out what those are.
Kim, could you please clarify the name of the Act you're commenting on? The finance.senate.gov website refers to the America's Healthy Future Act of 2009. Is this the same Act you refer to in your post?
So, at what point in a person's life should one be expected to take responsibility for one's health issues?
At birth? Now, that seems unlikely.
So, who'll take care of the costs of newborns with life threatening defects? The parents of the newborn?
That would seem fair, but life is a crapshoot as far as health goes. Why should the opportunity for survivability for anyone, let alone a newborn, be solely based on whether or not an individual can afford the policy(ies) that would need to be in force to improve that individuals odds of survival?
An individual may not be able to afford the coverage that may provide the care that would ensure their survival. I have family members whose health care premiums would consume their entire monthly income.
Throughout these blogs there have been fears expressed that through any health care reform plan, the government will have the final say in an individuals outcome, and that the only safe and free course is for each of us to take individual responsibility.
If someone cannot afford their health care premiums, and succumbs to an illness that may have been survivable with treatment, who really made the final call on that individuals survivability? The "Benjamins".
This is another sort of weeding out those who are not able to work and contribute to the benefit of our economy isn't it?
Meaning, if you're well enough to work at a job that will enable you to pay for your health insurance, you're valuable enough to keep around. On the other hand, if you can't pay for your health insurance, well, you're probably in some low paying job that doesn't really contribute to the advancement of humanity anyway, and there will be someone else out there who will take your place at your job.
"Sorry pal, you'll hardly be missed, and the rest of us will have more "Benajamins" to go toward our own care. See you on the other side".
Yes, it is the same one. A big eye-opener, too. Today, they are supposed to consider over 500 amendments and Baucus as already added a few before the actual meeting. Baucus' proposed concessions are to appease democrats and give middleclass taxpayers givebacks who are being hit hard with penalties.
Baucus, with clever foresight, gave himself leeway to add relatively insignificant improvements so that he could pretend he is flexible, and pretend that his bill can be made adequate, and thereby mollify progressives.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m.s.-bello...
(Time: 6:19am)
You and I don't always agree Dave, but I have to stand with you on THAT one!
"Und ven you are no lonker uzevul to der state, der Deutschmarks gerstoppen! Ish dacht nicht richt, Herr Goebbels?"
"Yah VOL mein Fuhrer! Seich Heil!!"
I've read through the Modifications to the Chairman's Mark "America's Healthy Future Act of 2009" and noted that a number of those 500 amendments have been brought forward by those Republicans who had some awareness of the content of America's Healthy Future Act of 2009 as it was developed by the Senate Committee on Finance.
I often wonder if the crooks in D.C. have any "awareness" of ANYTHING, besides their OWN bank accounts and retirement plans.
In today's economic crisis it would seem illogical (to be polite) to consider increasing the average family's financial burden. This seems a bit short-sighted but what does one expect of politicians. Their motives are different than that of average citizens.
Hey...............I didn't vote for him!
THROW THEM OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!! After the 2010 elections there should only be a few democrats in congress and they all should like the color blue! The liberal, left wing extremists in congress voted down 3 key amendments to the newest legislation. One would have the bill posted for review by the people on the internet 72 hours before any vote. One would show the estimated cost to YOU on the internet. Our own Walt Minnick was actually behind the push to have these amnedments included in the bill. Apparently the democrats in congress don't think you are smart enough to read a bill and understand it OR, they are trying to hide something from YOU!
Show some support for the men and women in congress that are supporting YOU!
So much for all that bi-partisanism that the president spoke about on the floor of congress. Maybe Jow Wilson wasn't so wrong after all. DO ya think Princess Pelosi will be held to task and made to apologize for screwing the American people AGAIN?
Now, how can you say things like that about such a "transparent" government?
Looks like the original amendment requiring a 72 hr. posting on the Senate Finance Committees website would've resulted in the posting of the full legislative document.
Further, it appears that the amendment was changed to require a "plain language" copy of the legislation to be posted, and dropped the 72 hour limit on the time the legislation would be posted on the Senate Finance COmmittees website. Sounds okay to me. Why limit it to 72 hours? What if the committee desires to post the legislation for a longer period?
I believe this would be fair. The commitee understands that they must address a wide audience, and 72 hours might not be enough time for all of us work our way through the legislation The full text has always been available to read, and the additional requirement to provide the "plain language" copy will benefit all of us by clarifying the formal legislative jargon.
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/legi...
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/...
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hear...
I don't understand the comment about "transparency". I've found this legislation by going to the finance.senate.gov website and watched live committee hearings on C-SPAN.
I don't think 72 hours is nearly enough time, not for a thousand pages!
I heard one of the radio commentators say just yesterday, that they should have ONE DAY PER PAGE.
Great idea! This would accomplish 2 things:
1. It would allow full comprehension of every item, and........
2. They would HAVE to keep these bills short and to the point.
Our "elected politicians" didn't even WRITE this crap, they paid LAWYERS to do it! What do they think we PAY them for?
When it's long and boring, it is EASIER to get members of Congress to just "sign off on it and hope it all comes out in the wash."
Oh..............the "transparency?" Obama harped on that all through his campaign, but now that he's in the White House, we have to find out for OURSELVES about what's in these "midnight" bills, stimulous packages, "CZAR" appointments and a myriad of other crap that has gone on "behind closed doors", in efforts to keep things from the public.
Doesn't sound like a "transparent government" to ME!................unless I'm missing something here.
But you know something? Maybe I've been looking at Obama in the wrong light.
Really.
For the last couple of decades, they've been chipping away, robbing, selling us out little by little..............
Ever so slightly, so as not to arouse too much public attention at any one time.
But with the coming of Obama, corruption and a drive to Socialism has ESCALATED at such a fevered pitch, he has awakened TOO MANY PEOPLE TOO QUICKLY.
Obama's regime has discarded the "tiny gradual steps" and BOOM!...........here we are......TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS, takeovers, huge government, sellouts, intimidations and taxes (in the guise of fines" and "fees")
We actually might have Obama to THANK, because THIS is what it's taken to WAKE PEOPLE UP as to what is happening to America, and it's been LONG overdue. Hell, he's even got party IN-FIGHTING going on now!
If Mountain Home News Archives exist, you can look back a couple of years ago into the Letters to the Editor files, and you will see where I said way back then, that "Only when the government becomes vile and corrupt enough, will the people stand and say NO!"
As Obama's regime is dug into, so much MORE IS and WILL BE uncovered, including crap from Clinton and Bush eras that involves a lot of these old crocks still seated back there. Obama may WELL have turned out to be a blessing in disguise........in a strange way. People are mad as hell now, and had McCain won the election, it might have just been "continued slow erosion" until eventually there'd have been NO hope of revering anything.
The folks ARE awake, (not a moment too soon, I might add), and these aren't the flash-in-the-pan hippies who carried the "legalize pot" signs yesterday and are gone tomorrow.
This is the heart of America now, and they aren't going away.
http://www.slate.com/id/2224938/
Dave, I'd like to read some of YOUR thoughts on these issues.
I look to talk radio for balance. You favor the left-websites.
But I still form my own ideas, and I'd like to know what YOU think.............how YOU feel and see things................and why.
One can find a website for anything they WANT to find, just like being able to get anything you want out of a poll.
Have you ever wondered WHO takes these polls? Have YOU ever been polled? I've never been polled, nor do I know anyone who has.
bazookaman, Anything specific you want to know about? Help me get started here.
Yes. How are these polls taken? So often, I see polls on issues that makes me think (example)......"That's that dumbest thing I've ever seen...............NO WAY 60% of Americans would support that."
When these polls are taken, do they just pick, say, 10 phone numbers in each state at random?
Sometimes the polls read so strangely, it makes me think they just poll 10 people around their newsroom-------------7 out of 10, which magically becomes "70% of the American people."
Do you happen to know how these polls are administered?
I sure don't know. I've never been polled.
It's sure be interesting to find out.