Monday
Feb222010
Health Care Reform - Act II
by 
Jim Steineke Monday, February 22, 2010 at 11:44PM
Jim Steineke Monday, February 22, 2010 at 11:44PM
Given the devastating losses the Democrats incurred in Virginia, New Jersey, and of course Massachusetts, one might have thought that the voices of the American people would surely be heard. One might have also thought that after reading poll after poll that showed how staunchly against their reforms the American people were, the President and Congressional leadership might have had second thoughts.
Looks like the insulated world of Washington politics is immune from the cries of outrage from its own citizenry...
The latest example is President Obama's release of his health care reform package that has been touted by the administration as a compromise. Sure, it's a compromise, but one that compromises between two fatally flawed bills.
An 11 page document so absent details you could drive a truck through the holes in it, it seeks to radically alter the health care system all the while ingnoring the limits placed on the federal government by the US Constitution.
Here are a few of the lowlights (source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/summary-presidents-proposal.pdf)
"Increasing the threshold for the excise tax on the most expensive health plans from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and starting it in 2018 for all plans." It doesn't mention however, how much the tax may be but it is likely to be close to the 40% (over a $10,000 tax) that the Senate bill provided for.
"A new Health Insurance Rate Authority will be created to provide needed oversight at the Federal level and help States determine how rate review will be enforced and monitor insurance market behavior." This is yet another overreach of federal government auhtority over states' rights. Why a new federal agency when each state already has their own insurance commissioner?
Insurance company & State mandates: "Within months of legislation being enacted, it requires plans to cover adult dependents up to age 26, prohibits rescissions, mandates that plans have a stronger appeals process, and requires State insurance authorities to conduct annual rate review, backed up by the oversight of the HHS Secretary. When the exchanges begin in 2014, the President’s Proposal adds new protections that prohibit all annual and lifetime limits, ban pre-existing condition exclusions, and prohibit discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals. Beginning in 2018, the President’s Proposal requires “grandfathered” plans to cover proven preventive services with no cost sharing.
This bill also relies on mandates for coverage for all citizens. The basis of cost estimates is that the younger, healthy citizens need to be paying in to the system in order to make coverage affordable for the old and the sick. However, they insert a loophole into their own logic by creating an "out" for those that don't wish to purchase coverage. Under the plan, if individuals decide not to purchase insurance they will be taxed based on a flat rate for lower income individuals or a percentage of income for higher wage earners. Either way, they have set up their own system for failure because in either instance it will be much cheaper to pay the tax than it will be to buy the insurance. Coupled with the ability to buy insurance after you get ill (insurance companies can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions), what remains is virtually the same problem we have today.
This same flawed logic prevails in another aspect of the "reform". Under Obama's proposal, any business that employs more than 50 people would be required to provide their employees with health insurance. Again, however, the President allows for business owners to pay a penalty instead of covering their employees. And of course, this penalty amounts to $2000 per employee, or less than half the 2009 average employer contribution. What employer is going to continue to cover their employees under this sytem?
The personal mandate, the business mandate, and the excise tax on the most expensive plans will ultimately lead to lower quality plans and more people in state run insurance exchanges (overseen by the federal government of course).
And some other ways they plan on paying for this? How about an increase in fees on brand name pharmaceuticals, a new excise tax on medical devices, and a 2.9 percent "assessment" on income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents for individuals making over $200,000 or couples making over $250,000?
All of this is in the bill. See for yourself at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/summary-presidents-proposal.pdf
Oh yeah, one more thing. They are going to try and pass this through the reconciliation procedure which will bypass all historical precedence when it comes to a piece of legislation this large and controversial.
Looks like we have some more work to do. Please stay tuned....
Looks like the insulated world of Washington politics is immune from the cries of outrage from its own citizenry...
The latest example is President Obama's release of his health care reform package that has been touted by the administration as a compromise. Sure, it's a compromise, but one that compromises between two fatally flawed bills.
An 11 page document so absent details you could drive a truck through the holes in it, it seeks to radically alter the health care system all the while ingnoring the limits placed on the federal government by the US Constitution.
Here are a few of the lowlights (source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/summary-presidents-proposal.pdf)
"Increasing the threshold for the excise tax on the most expensive health plans from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and starting it in 2018 for all plans." It doesn't mention however, how much the tax may be but it is likely to be close to the 40% (over a $10,000 tax) that the Senate bill provided for.
"A new Health Insurance Rate Authority will be created to provide needed oversight at the Federal level and help States determine how rate review will be enforced and monitor insurance market behavior." This is yet another overreach of federal government auhtority over states' rights. Why a new federal agency when each state already has their own insurance commissioner?
Insurance company & State mandates: "Within months of legislation being enacted, it requires plans to cover adult dependents up to age 26, prohibits rescissions, mandates that plans have a stronger appeals process, and requires State insurance authorities to conduct annual rate review, backed up by the oversight of the HHS Secretary. When the exchanges begin in 2014, the President’s Proposal adds new protections that prohibit all annual and lifetime limits, ban pre-existing condition exclusions, and prohibit discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals. Beginning in 2018, the President’s Proposal requires “grandfathered” plans to cover proven preventive services with no cost sharing.
This bill also relies on mandates for coverage for all citizens. The basis of cost estimates is that the younger, healthy citizens need to be paying in to the system in order to make coverage affordable for the old and the sick. However, they insert a loophole into their own logic by creating an "out" for those that don't wish to purchase coverage. Under the plan, if individuals decide not to purchase insurance they will be taxed based on a flat rate for lower income individuals or a percentage of income for higher wage earners. Either way, they have set up their own system for failure because in either instance it will be much cheaper to pay the tax than it will be to buy the insurance. Coupled with the ability to buy insurance after you get ill (insurance companies can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions), what remains is virtually the same problem we have today.
This same flawed logic prevails in another aspect of the "reform". Under Obama's proposal, any business that employs more than 50 people would be required to provide their employees with health insurance. Again, however, the President allows for business owners to pay a penalty instead of covering their employees. And of course, this penalty amounts to $2000 per employee, or less than half the 2009 average employer contribution. What employer is going to continue to cover their employees under this sytem?
The personal mandate, the business mandate, and the excise tax on the most expensive plans will ultimately lead to lower quality plans and more people in state run insurance exchanges (overseen by the federal government of course).
And some other ways they plan on paying for this? How about an increase in fees on brand name pharmaceuticals, a new excise tax on medical devices, and a 2.9 percent "assessment" on income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents for individuals making over $200,000 or couples making over $250,000?
All of this is in the bill. See for yourself at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/summary-presidents-proposal.pdf
Oh yeah, one more thing. They are going to try and pass this through the reconciliation procedure which will bypass all historical precedence when it comes to a piece of legislation this large and controversial.
Looks like we have some more work to do. Please stay tuned....
Reader Comments (1)
Time to start calling your legislators again...on a daily basis, maybe twice a day.