Over the past few weeks, House and Senate Democratic leaders have been working to craft a compromise between their two health care bills that were passed over the last few months. Today, President Obama has released what Dan Pfeiffer, Communications Director at the White House, is calling the administration’s "best shot" at bridging the differences between the House and Senate.
The proposal comes in advance of the planned health care summit on February 25th where Republicans and Democrats will meet and talk about the health care proposals on the table. The White House thought it would be most productive to "come to the table with one proposal," as Pfeiffer put it.
Over the last few months, we’ve been fighting to finish health reform right under the rubric of two main goals. By making health care affordable we mean making sure insurance is affordable for individuals, making sure insurance is affordable at work, and making sure middle-class health plans aren’t taxed. By holding insurance companies accountable we mean giving regulators a national exchange so insurance plans in the exchange are subject to the same stringent rules and creating a public health insurance option to hold private insurance companies accountable.
So, what does the President’s plan do?
(Note: The plan starts from the Senate bill as a foundation so any changes listed in the overview of the President’s plan [pdf] are changes to the Senate bill.)
Affordability for individuals
The President’s plan merges the tax credit schedules of the House and Senate bills for the subsidies an individual or small business would get if they buy health care on the exchange.
As noted previously, the House bill provided much more generous tax credits to lower income people so they could truly afford health care while the Senate bill was more generous for the middle class. The President’s bill has merged these two in a way that makes health care more affordable to both low and middle income people.
Here’s what the subsidies look like in the President’s bill compared to the House and Senate bills:
Affordability at work
The House bill included a crucial "pay or play" provision that would have required employers to provide good health care at affordable prices to their employees and help small business afford it. If a business didn’t provide health care, it would have had to pay a fee to the government to offset the cost to government of providing health care for uncovered workers.
The Senate, by contrast, does not require all businesses to contribute their fair share. Instead, they’d only pay $750 per worker per year if they left them uncovered and the worker qualified for a subsidy in the exchange.
The President’s plan, though not a full "pay or play" system, moves towards reconciling the House and Senate bills. If a business does not offer coverage, it must pay $2,000 per worker to help cover the cost of insuring its employees. The White House estimates that this amount is one-third less than the average amount businesses would pay under the House proposal.
Taxing middle class plans
The excise tax in the Senate bill would tax many middle class health care plans, making coverage worse and more expensive. The House finances their health care bill by taxing those that can most afford it – households making more than $1 million per year.
The President’s plan does not do away with the excise tax entirely, but it makes some significant changes. The threshold at which the tax kicks in was moved from $23,000 as the cost of a health care plan in the Senate bill to $27,500 for families and from $8,500 to $10,200 for individuals, and the tax would not kick in until 2018.
In addition, dental and vision benefits won’t be part of the cost calculation, in effect raising the threshold higher.
The thresholds will be pegged to inflation plus 1% and will automatically go upwards if "health costs rise unexpectedly quickly between now and 2018" when the tax is set to phase in.
Finally, there will be adjustments in the threshold for businesses that have higher costs due to the gender or age makeup of their employees.
Health Insurance Exchange Design
The President’s plan maintains the state-based exchange design in the Senate bill instead of a more robust, national one. The President proposes giving HHS and state regulators the authority and funding to question and block rate increases like we’ve seen recently from Anthem/WellPoint in California.
Igor Volsky at Think Progress has a rundown of what the new policy would do:
The final Senate health care bill already bars insurers with excessive rate hikes from participating in the insurance exchanges but this new provision would go a step further, federalizing the states’ traditional and somewhat uneven role in monitoring insurance rate increases. At least 25 states have some “form of a prior approve process for premium increases,” but state governments often lack the resources or political will to keep insurers in check. Obama’s provision is both politically and substantively significant. It protects consumers from unreasonable rate increases but also prohibits insurers from dramatically increasing rates during the elections of 2010 and 2012 or the period between the passage of comprehensive reform and implementation.
Democrats were worried that insurers would exploit the interim period to boost profits ahead of the new insurance regulations. The federal government’s new rate review powers could blunt at least some of the anticipated increases. Here is how rate review would work:
- Insurance companies would have to justify unreasonable premium increases.
- The Secretary could deny or modify health insurance rate increases that are found to be unjustified.
- The Secretary would determine whether states have the capability to conduct rate reviews.
- Establishes a Health Insurance Rate Authority to advise the Secretary. It will have seven members, including consumer representatives, an insurance industry representative, a physician and other experts like health economists and actuaries
…
Since conservatives will surely claim that rate review is some kind of government take over of private industry or a burdensome new federal requirement for insurers, it’s important to note that states that have instituted rate review house profitable insurance companies and maintain competitive and vibrant markets. Families USA has more on that here.
Public Option
There is no public health insurance option in the President’s bill.
Other changes
In addition, the President’s plan would:
- fully close the donut hole for prescription drugs under Medicare by 2020
- put more money into community health centers
- some changes in the individual mandate, plus allowing people to opt out of purchasing insurance entirely if they’re below the tax filing threshold of $18,700 per year for families
- gets rid of "pay for delay" which allows branded pharmaceutical companies to keep generics off the market by paying the generic maker to stay out
- $10 billion in more tax on big PhRMA
- fully funds the Medicaid expansion for states until 2017, funds it at 95% until 2019, and funds it at 90% going forward after that
- gets rid of the special deals like Senator Nelson’s cornhusker kickback
- is fully paid for and reduces the deficit over 10 and 20 year periods
————————–
Perhaps more significant than the proposal this morning was Pfeiffer’s comments on the strategy for passing the President’s plan:
The President expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform. The proposal was designed to ensure we can get that if the opposition decides they will filibuster health reform.
Heading into the summit on the 25th, the President has a plan on the table that the administration believes represents a compromise between Democrats in the House and the Senate with no large token policy given to Republicans before they arrive at the negotiating table that wasn’t already in one of the two bills. And the plan was designed to pass via reconciliation.
Most Republicans have yet to formally RSVP to the summit or post their unified plan online as the White House has done. It’s still an open question whether Republicans can coalesce around one plan, as opposed to the multiple, non-serious proposals they’ve released so far. And the President has told them that he hopes they come to the summit in "good faith." The rest of America? We know we need health reform finished, we know we need it finished right, and we know that it will take the Democrats in Congress to get it done.
And we’re making our voices heard. On Wednesday, the day before the summit, we’re mobilizing with MoveOn.org and dozens of other partners to let Congress hear from us one million times. This barrage of action will come as Melanie’s March – a group of health insurance company survivors walking 135 miles from Philadelphia to DC in honor of Melanie Shouse, a health care activists who died because she didn’t have affordable health care – concludes with a rally in DC.
Click here to join us! Because if you’re going to speak up, you should do it now.
(also posted at the NOW! blog)
I’m proud to work for Health Care for America Now




84 Comments




Perhaps an insignificant point amid so much bungling but IIRC, the Senate proposal was to close the Medicare Part D donut hole by 2019, so in proposing to close it by 2020 the president is actually making the Senate bill EVEN worse.
My understanding was it was only a partial closure, and this is a full closure.
In that case it would represent an improvement. Still, ten years is too long for people who need prescriptions they cannot afford today.
Jason, what is your interpretation of the section pertaining to encouraging marketing of generic drugs? I only read the version in the summary. Would simply getting rid of “pay for delay” suffice or would drug companies still be able to tweak their products to prolong their exclusivity?
You know, drug policy is really not an area of expertise for me, and even if it was, this stuff is really really complex. My read is it eliminates a significant loophole, but there are still lots of ways for brand-name makers to beat out generics, and a lot more would have to be done to really bring down prices. Like, say, re-importation.
mr status quo– mr. war, mr. terrorism and now mr support a mandate crap sandwich–corporatist warmonger– you have little to offer
premium cost alone does not define affordability.
coverage, deductibles, copays, coinsurance, out of pocket maximums are all part of what also defines affordability.
Right, no doubt. I definitely said “more affordable” and not a definitive “affordable” on purpose. This is a step, but more calculations have to be done to see where we stand.
KILL THE BILL
Look lets just steal France’s healthcare plan we already know it works better the French live longer than us and they smoke and drink like we do. Plus its cheaper can’t we get big Tobacco and the Alcohol lobby behind us on a plan that keeps their customers alive longer?
Plus the French eat high quality food but its everything the Doctor says don’t eat. We can get the food lobby behind us too.
thanks for the reply. could also be less affordable for some people (who need healthcare) if out of pocket expenses are higher (not saying that they are, i haven’t seen any numbers — but that may be entirely my fault as i haven’t gone looking for them).
Selise, you don’t want to destroy the Administration’s celebration by insisting that the fine print be read, or actually published, do you?
a question on what is imo a big issue: is there anything in obama’s plan that would make it harder or easier for states like PA to experiment with a single payer program?
Right. I’ve yet to see or run the numbers, so it’s a bit up in the air right now.
I have a question that I hope is not too dumb.
How long did it take for the “Donut Hole” to become operational after it was created in years? months? I do not know the answer and with all the knowledge at this site, I hope someone can answer that question.
It is easy to see where I am going with this. If it takes 10 years to close the “donut hole”, how long did it take to put it into operation in the first place?
Thank you in advance for an answer.
The tax is indexed to inflation but not regional cost of living. This means that those of us in areas that have a higher cost of living will be negatively impacted more than those in low cost states. Even Obama’s paid spokesman from MIT recommended this. This is just the same crap with a different label
The “plan” is more of a framework, so I doubt it gets down to that level, but I don’t see any ERISA changes, so it doesn’t make it easier or harder, I guess, but honestly I’m not sure what goes into it.
With the insurance vultures raising rates as high as they can get away with it won’t be long and many will be paying the excise tax on plans that offer less with each premium increase. Cadillac tax on a VW with 3 wheels.
the fine print is our friend!
(you think i’m being picky now? last week i spent one afternoon at the library tracking down the congressional record on microfiche for a footnote from riddick’s senate procedure – i can’t believe how deep in the weeds powwow has got me interested in going on that issue *g*).
thanks.
If you want to pass something get allies with Booze, Tobacco, UnHealthy Food you got three Horsemen of the HealthHorsemen of the Apocalypse on your side.
Plus I know that Senator McCain’s wife gots that Anheuser-Busch Beer distributorship I think we can turn him if we explain to him his wife will make more money if her customers live longer.
I think we can turn John if we say if Truman had passed Healthcare there would have probably been enough White Men alive today to have made you President.
White Male voters were John’s strongest Demographic.
Obama Rahm the GOP none of them play poker, chess or go they just say they do. I’m ok at 2 out of the three games but come on things are bad when I catch mistakes.
yeah. i think that was one of the reasons people in MA were against the senate bill. rates here are already very high (highest in the nation or close to it, i think). so the fear was the tax would affect a lot of people who may already not have plans anyone would call cadillac (although i’m more for calling them comprehensive coverage instead of cadillac, which makes it sound like something special instead of what everyone should have)
Subsidy for a family of one earning $10/hour, which is roughly $20k a year — since the government refuses to recognize my marriage to my wife: ZERO. Bupkiss. Nothing.
Notice how they never mention the smallest families — those of just one or two? Notice how it’s never mentioned how small businesses (my wife and I own and operate a two-person LLC) and independent contractors are supposed to afford this new junk insurance?
I am so inclined.
Small businesses get tax credits, and individuals can get subsidies.
However, the marriage equality situation is still a tragedy.
This is snark right Selise gots the links better than probably any commentor here. Its just one of the reasons Selise is special.
How about pricing drugs based on the World average price for the said drug. across the board. Gee Free Market workings… then we Americans will stop paying ALL the costs of bringing new drugs to market!! Free Market!! OMFG!! Pukes will never carry it that far… sigh..
reconciliation would, i’m pretty sure permit beowulf’s plan to be passed with 50 votes:
beowulf January 31st, 2010
strong public option with everyone covered (health insurance, not health care), we have a shot at saving the planet’s climate and the whole thing is bipartisan to boot. what’s not to love? i don’t know – have to ask the dem leadership, ‘cuz they are the ones not going for it.
Those who can’t afford a plan providing vision or dental are penalized (by not being covered) because they can’t afford it. Those who can afford it are penalized because they can. Makes sense to me. Shit.
(((TCU))) i’m sure it was snark, but your comment was really nice. thank you!
LOL! LOL!
you know i’m a major sucker for gallows humor, right?
Keep drinking that Obama Kool-Aid Jason. Obama’s plan is fundamentally a bait-and-switch under which the strict individual mandate in the House version (which was a trade-off for the public option) gets made more strict and there is no public option. The rest of the stuff is tinkering around the edges without changing the fundamental indexing problems that tighten the burden like a noose around middle class families.
new thread upstairs: As Another Military Leader Edges Toward Repeal of DADT, Lieberman Tries to Command Spotlight
Why not tax income and total assets? How many rich folks got tax free family trusts and only draw income as they need it?
The average person however between credit card debt, home loans, student loans, homes that are worth less than the price they bought them at is barely getting by.
This is a tax on us! Plus the GOP knows that this if this passes they will run against it and primary any moderate GOPers who vote for it.
Next Election they will run on repealing Healthcare.
Am re-reading Chomsky’s Profit Over People. His observations/analysis are more concrete than they were 10-15 years ago.
I saw that over at HuffPo. To paraphrase Henry II, who can rid me of this meddlesome, self-serving asshole? I realize he’s been against DADT from day one but he just can’t help himself when it comes to being in the limelight.
I’m sure it was snark. But its like getting on me for Ranting:) We each bring something different to the Lake without your links the Lake would be less informed.
Without rants the GOP would say we lack passion and were Elitists.
“Over the last few months, we’ve been fighting to finish health reform right under the rubric of two main goals. By making health care affordable we mean making sure insurance is affordable for individuals, making sure insurance is affordable at work, and making sure middle-class health plans aren’t taxed. By holding insurance companies accountable we mean giving regulators a national exchange so insurance plans in the exchange are subject to the same stringent rules and creating a public health insurance option to hold private insurance companies accountable.”
So lets see: (skipping over affordable)
1.”The President’s plan does not do away with the excise tax entirely, but it makes some significant changes.”
2.” The President’s plan maintains the state-based exchange design in the Senate bill instead of a more robust, national one.”
3. “There is no public health insurance option in the President’s bill.”
And back to affordable:
@6 selise :
” premium cost alone does not define affordability.
coverage, deductibles, copays, coinsurance, out of pocket maximums are all part of what also defines affordability.”
The response @7:
“Right, no doubt. I definitely said “more affordable” and not a definitive “affordable” on purpose. This is a step, but more calculations have to be done to see where we stand.”
I look forward to those ‘calculations’- but they really don’t matter.
“The rest of America? We know we need health reform finished, we know we need it finished right, and we know that it will take the Democrats in Congress to get it done.”
Reference the previous discussion and see how the preceding paragraph matches up.
BTW: Haven’t heard from Dr. Gruber lately- maybe he’ll stop by and chime up with some calculations to help clarify the issue.
Link to craigslist posting for large bridge for sale: click here.
I never said it wasn’t tinkering.
As for the individual mandate, that changes are actually fairly complex. It got stricter for some, but looser for others, and for the super-low income, it’s gone completely.
Good question.
For seniors and the disabled on Medicare the provision on closing the donut hole by 2020 is a bad joke. There never should have been a donut hole.
“The President expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform.”
This coming from the guy who created his own self-imposed 60 vote filibuster. This would be comedy gold if it wasn’t so serious.
Just one question, Do we want another 7 years of this?
i never read that one from chomsky (have only read a small fraction of his books – there are way too many!), is it one of the better ones i should put on my reading list?
add equal portions of snark, rants and links. stir gently.
i like that recipe!
re healthcare and the climate: i vote we just put beowulf in charge (see my @27).
later friends…..
Rut ro, Howard Dean is pleased with the Obama proposal.
I think this will be a good bill once the Senate adds in a public option. A late push for the public option will give this bill more support across the country.
I hope you’re right.
Me too, but I just read that Jay Rockefeller doesn’t support using reconciliation to pass the public option. I hope he can be persuaded. We don’t need bipartisanship, we need reform.
That said, the Senate bill plus the other fixes is better than our current system. I understand the anger, but this is a step in the right direction. I will be bummed if they can’t get 51 votes for a public option, though.
the health insurance industry will make a fortune off this plan.
follow the money that was spent for reelections of these liars.
any country that makes mega profits off the sick and needy and refused health care insurance for pre existing conditions and the sick and needy deserves what it gets.
third world status.
we are a corrupt country to the core with our wars for profits and mega profits off the sick and needy.
imperialism and capitalism go hand and hand.
we are bankrupt in more than money we are bankrupt morally also.
capitalism will create a selfish immoral society. we are living proof of that.
how few will understand my words how few. michael moore maybe.
an economic system will have a profound impact on human behaviour.
Come on, you don’t have to be so negative. We’ve messed up badly throughout our history, but we’ve also done lots of good. I don’t think capitalism is the enemy. If we had some actual competition amongst the insurers, that would help lower costs and provide better services. Capitalism can be good or bad, it’s up to Americans to decide. Green, sustainable capitalism is not such a bad thing.
I understand the anger about the health care debate. I would love to have France’s system here in the US, but that’s just not a reality right now. I view the current health bill as better than what we have now and a step in the right direction. I wish the step was a leap, but it’s not and we have the rest of our lives to keep fighting for a more just and decent society.
Let’s ditch the doom and gloom.
The bill is a wish list for industry “in case of reform”, that contains a tyrannical provision compelling people to purchase and hold private health insurance products with no public alternative. The bill must die, die, die. In America, you can’t buy a law forcing all people to buy your privately-made products with no alternative, and the IRS as your personal collection agency.
The only reason this bill is being offered is so that, in an election year, Obama and the Democrats can claim that they “reformed” health care. Never mind the tyrannical fact that in their legislation Aetna is now Your Daddy.
If this bill passes into law, the IRS and I can start an extended dialogue.
I mean, shit, what’s next? Coca-cola gets a “reform” bill that requires me to buy Coke, with the provision made for me that I have choice of Diet Coke, Regular Coke, Cherry Coke, Radioactive Uranium Coke, or Dasani bottled water?
President Obama can find a secret closet in the Oval Office and do us all the courtesy of locking himself until the end of his (hopefully) single term if this is what has to offer us as “leadership”.
President Obama campaigned on making a public alternative to private insurance a reality. As far as “ditch the doom and gloom” … well, it is not our responsibility to smile and take it in the pants just because that is what the utterly corrupt and sold-out Democratic party along with the wretched head of state we all voted into power is intending for us now.
In that case what are the factors that transform a predatory model into one that supports some degree of equality of access to the exercise of human rights?
This is a fallacy promoted by the predators. It is generativity and collaboration that create and sustain civil societies.
Competition is for game playing. I have no problem with that as long as the games are not played by risking my wealth and my life and limb for someone else’s profit.
This is particularly true for medical care. It is either good enough or not. Equal care=equal cost.
I’m coming down on the negative side of all of this plan, as the WH unveils it.
1) ANY pressure on business to enforce or fine for coverage or lack of coverage of employees is going to heavily stall rebuilding jobs quickly. Employer loses, unemployed lose.
2) I fail to see how subsidies, if not 100% for all, enable poor or middle income people to afford something they can’t afford now. How can they afford another 2%-9% out of what they earn if they can’t afford it now?
3) The mandate will also suppress wages, driving them down and down, to compensate for added costs burdening employers. Employers lose, employees lose.
4) State exchanges lack clout that national exchange would have, bad idea.
I see a giveaway to big med, insurance and PhRMA, a burden on we the people, and very few actually helped because they will incur costs for coverage they can’t afford now!!!!! Not to mention the coverage will be minimal, and likely not to include dental and eye . . . .
I just don’t see what the WH has unveiled as being good for we the people, in any fashion.
And despite the eternal soundings of a few folks in this forum, I don’t see a vibrant public option being shoveled thru with reconciliation, I see NO reason to hope for it. Not even Harry Reid’s polling numbers.
The Senate has screwed us all again . . . . I’ll wait and see what finally transpires and passes, but I lack any hope for something that will benefit the masses (AFFORDABLE Universal Coverage) and/or punish and regulate/control the private insurance companies, PhRMA or big med.
Sigh. Thanks for keeping us up to date, Jason and FDL. Between you, Mz. Hamsher’s, Jon Walker’s and David Dayen’s posts today, we have a pretty good handle on what’s going on.
Kill the bill.
What evidence do you have to share that the Senate is going to push thru a ROBUST Public Option?
Ok. Let’s just leave the system as is and waste an entire year. Getting the 60 votes needed in the Senate to pass this bill was the best the Democrats could do. Those new regulations and system changes will help families, businesses, and the government hold down costs. We can go back now and make the bill better with just 51 votes. I hope they can get a public option in their to make the bill better, but if they don’t, I’m still for passing the Senate bill and sidecar bill. That is better than our current system.
It is a proven fact that competition among businesses in the same industry improves the products for consumers. We need to strip the industry of their anti-trust exemptions and pass a public option, also. I’m not sure if we can get the public option, but getting rid of the exemptions should be doable. I know that Speaker Pelosi is going to take up this effort soon.
We no longer operate under a democratic led republic, nor do we exist within a capitalistic system.
We exist and operate under the marriage of the corporate structure with our elected officials.
That’s the full definition of facism.
I want a pony too, but we live under facism, not capitalism and unfettered free markets . . . this facism is heavily regulated by monopoly and legislation benefitting the corporations . . . the myth of free market capitalism died in the early 80′s under deregulation and Reagan.
Where you been?
They won’t, but a weaker public option based on negotiated rates is still better than nothing.
I’m with you on that. But how does not passing the Senate bill even attempt to change our reality? If no reform is passed, the situation will get even worse and no one will want to even attempt to try this debate again for a long time. We need to stop the bleeding now and then keep improving the system in the coming years.
1) You mistake a furthering of the corporate interests for reform.
2) People and businesses won’t benefit, they will be FORCED to spend money they don’t have NOW, regardless of subsidy’s, and then fined if they DON’T!
This will kill hiring, and will further burden those who DO find the % to buy what they can’t afford, because they will will still be forced to not use it because of co pays and extended costs of USING any care coverage.
This present WH package and the existent Senate bill are a full squeeze on the masses, and it’s illegal to assign the mandate with IRS as the collector/enforcer for something the government LEGISLATES you have to buy from a private company.
This ain’t auto insurance . . . I can choose not to drive a care and not have a license.
The mandate does NOT allow me to opt ouit without spending my money, and then I’m being legally punished on top of that!!!
We really disagree about what this WH Package and the Senate bill are . . . it’s not green if you say it’s green. It does not benefit people the way you claim it will. And I, Selise, and countless other FDL Pups have written about it and have shown proof for our claims, over the past 9 months.
End of story, for me.
Do you have health insurance?
Do you have health insurance?
Rahm, is that you?
None of your business, thanks.
*G*
We’ve disagreed on things recently, but that was just gob smacked down effing funny.
Thanks for the humor!
*G*
What is that even supposed to mean? I’m actually starting to think that many of the anti-Obama, anti-reform people here are Republicans just trying to stir things up.
Almost every Republican in Congress is against this bill, why side with them? Siding with Republicans is siding with those who believe our current health care system is just fine.
No it is not proven. If you believe you have proof please provide references.
Never mind, I am not up to a shooting match.
However most who study biology, anthropology and sociology would I believe beg to differ.Collaboration and service to each other is what makes for a rich stable culture.
Competition is for game players. Unfortunately many in business and politics are game players. How was your last flight? And in good old academia, how about Assistant Prof Bishop testing a medication or device that is to go inside you?
What are you talking about? Nature is not that way. Nature can be very ugly. Survival of the fittest is nature.
We don’t have any competition right now within our insurance industry. The whole point of creating the public option was so it could compete against the for-profit insurers.
You are revealing your sound bite eugenics inspired spin from the mouth of Limbaugh.
As I said I am not into a shoot out with you but I respectfully suggest you do some in depth reading in the above disciplines. One easy to read worker who spans most of those is the late Stephen Jay Gould. Even Darwin noted that empathy for fellow creatures has a place in preserving species. Collaboration has a high survival value for species..
Even the traditional meme of the bucks in sexual competition rarely includes the death of one of the combatants. Only on Wall street do we see such behavior within the species.
I may be being a bit hyperbolic as nothing organic is black and white or universally applicable. But the evidence is more abundant on the side of social organization.
.
Aaaaaand that’s the Obamachine heard from!
Thanks, Jason, for letting us know what Our Owners and Betters have decided for us!
In other words, I still smell shit sandwich! Now, why would that be?
Wow. Get over yourself. I can’t actually hear your smugness.
Go vote Republican in 2010. Be your true self.
Hi FDL people.I have decided to take just a moment to compliment the commentors on this site.While I am a conservative, I seek out opposing veiws in an attempt to better understand the issues. I always find inteligent debate and discourse on this site.I have learned much from my visits to FDL.I often have different veiws,but feel my comments are always addressed in a respectful manner.The biggest eye opener for me has been learning that we often want the same outcomes,but differ on the way to get there.Thank you again. Sheric
A couple thoughts on this.
1. Asking employers to provide health care will not stall recovery, though the Chamber of Commerce will certainly say so. Small business, those who provide the most jobs to Americans, are exempt, and in fact will get tax credits to help provide health care if they choose or offset the cost for the health care they already provide. This is mostly to stop the big companies who can well afford it from getting off free.
2. That’s not quite how it works now. Even someone who has no health insurance has health care costs, no matter how poor they are. Be it over the counter drugs, home remedies, or time in the emergency room that bankrupts them, people even on the low end of the income spectrum spend money on health care. So when a bill asks them to pay 2-9%, that’s not necessarily 2-9% on top of what they spend, that might be instead of some of the money they spend. Now, like I noted above, it’s still to be determined if this is truly affordable for all, but it’s not quite a totally new burden.
3. No, it really won’t. Lots of studies say so. Will find links if I get a second.
4. No argument here.
Kiss somemore Republican ass.
I am sorry if I offended you. But you do have some if the facts wrong. Even Greenspan acknowledged our economy has been operating on principles that don’t work.
My field happens to be the biological sciences so I do have a perspective that involves some understanding and opinions of the organic nature of man. If it offends you I am sorry.
The Initial Coverage Limit aka “donut hole” became effective immediately upon implementation of Medicare Part D. In simple terms, you pay a reduced price for prescriptions until the initial coverage limit (calculated by the full undiscounted retail cost of your prescriptions) is reached. You then have to pay $4500 out of pocket before coverage begins again.
People requiring the highest price meds can reach the initial coverage limit by February or March. In the two years my mother had Medicare Part D before she died, she reached the donut hole in May.
I’m reading the PDF version of Obama’s proposal and its 11 pages.
ELEVEN PAGES.
Did he come up with this proposal during breakfast today?
Vote this Lemon down.
You’re just reading the summary.
“Almost every Republican in Congress is against this bill, why side with them?”
I love that silly knee-jerk logic. Almost every Republican in Congress eats breakfast, does that mean you oppose people eating breakfast?
Then point me to his full proposal. I can only find the section that is titled “Download the full PDF of the President’s key improvements”.
Must be me. I was confused by the words “full PDF”.
I looked at the Health Care Now PDF….
Am I right in thinking that a single person who makes 100% of FDL ($10,800) has to shell out $2200 with the Senate plan?
WTF – are you kidding me? Tell me I’m reading it wrong, please. That’s ridiculous.
I’ve been keeping my head above water making that much. How ironic that with health care “reform” I would actually go into debt again.
No, if you’re under the tax filing cap (18k per year), you can opt to have no insurance with no penalty. If you want insurance, at that income level you’d pay $200 per year. That’s 2% of $10,800.
But actually, under this proposal, folks at that income level would be able to get Medicaid.
This is just another, in a long line of disappointments, from a man I really had hoped would help the people. I worked myself into a frenzy during his campaign, contributing more than I could afford. I REALLY believed in him. In no time at all, I realized he was nothing more than a FRAUD, just another Con-artist and petty politician. He never really wanted the public option. That was easy to see, if one could read body language. He’s paid off to the lobbies, just like the rest of them! He made his deals with the pharmaceutical and health insurance corporations, who became his REAL MASTERS. We were able to read who came and went to the White House right on the Huffington Post, and Billy Tauzin was there early and often in the game. Billy, the one who wheeled and dealed for the fraudulent Medicare Part D RX Plan, into the small hours of the morning, live on C-SPAN. I watched that performance, and then, soon after, I became one of his victims when he left congress to head the giant Pharma lobby. My husband’s company soon had no incentive to continue its fantastic retiree pharmaceutical benefit. Why should they? The government would take care of it! Or would they? Our bills went up by thousands every year, caught up in that “donut hole,” and in OVER-INFLATED pharmaceutical prices. AND OBAMA THINKS HIS PLAN WILL MAKE US HAPPY? WHAT ABOUT FISA, DOMESTIC SPYING, 2 ILLEGAL WARS, ETC. HE IS NOTHING BUT BUSH IN COSTUME (SANS SPINE)!!! WE NEED A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IN 2012, OR ELSE!!!