I've lived in Mtn Home since 1989, so that's...hold on...I'm thinking...WOW! Exactly 25 years! Boy, I think I can almost declare myself an Idahoan. But my family is British and I grew up in Louisiana around lots of other Brits so I still think I'm a little bit of a mutt. Those of you who have been around awhile may remember when I used to blog all the time. My opinions weren't very accepted and there was always an issue because I work for the county. That really wasn't fair because I NEVER blog at work! And I am still entitled to my opinions and thoughts about city and county issues, right? However, it stirred a lot of pots and those pots certainly can make a lot of noise! Since I'm a writer, I took what I wrote in my blog seriously so I spent a lot of time researching things which got exhausting to do when you're not even get a paycheck for it. So I stopped. That was a blessing to many! However, to this day, I still have people stop me and ask me why I wasn't blogging and t! hey missed it. I've missed it. Mainly because there are so many issues that come up and I have no voice except around my friends and I'm sure they are tired of it.

Healthy Benefits Act of 2009

Posted 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

View 12 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Change you can believe in! Yes Kim, that was a "fun" read huh (for those of us who can read that is)? FLUSH!!!

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, at 1:41 PM
"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.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, at 4:42 PM
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?

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, at 4:47 PM
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".

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, at 6:14 AM
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.-bellows/legs-on-a-pike-understand_b_294166.ht...

(Time: 6:19am)

-- Posted by kimkovac on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, at 6:19 AM
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.

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, at 9:17 PM
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.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, at 11:10 AM
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?

-- Posted by mhbouncer on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, at 7:37 AM
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/legislation.htm

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/092209%20Modified%20Amendment...

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearings.htm

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.

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, at 4:33 PM
http://www.slate.com/id/2224938/

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Sun, Sep 27, 2009, at 4:19 PM
bazookaman, Anything specific you want to know about? Help me get started here.

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Wed, Sep 30, 2009, at 3:55 PM
I sure don't know. I've never been polled.

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Wed, Sep 30, 2009, at 8:15 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register