Making sense of Heath Care bill

[Glenn W]

First of all, I'm no expert on the details of the Health care reform bill that was recently enacted. I'm well aware that most on this board do not approve of the Bill, but I'd be willing to bet that most here (as well as the rest of American Citizens) have no idea of what some of the new mandates really are.
The following is MY understanding of some of the most controversial aspects of the new law:

Individual Insurance mandate:
The following is a published summary of this mandate:

Individual Mandate
Citizens and legal residents are required to have “qualifying health coverage” by year 2014. Those without coverage
pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per
family or 2.5 percent of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule:
$95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0 percent of taxable income in 2014, 2.0 percent
of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5 percent of taxable income in 2016. After 2016, the penalty will be increased
annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions will be granted for those for whom the lowest cost plan
option exceeds 8 percent of an individual’s income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009
the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).

What this means to me (and I may be wrong), is that after 2014, a taxpayer ( winos, bums, etc are exempt) will be assessed a tax penality up to $2,085 ( phased in to the year 2016) if they have no health insurance. What does this really mean?
The tax payer would loose up to $2,085 of their personal exemption deduction for income tax perposes. Or, you can look at it another way: I would expect this tax penalty would apply mostly to low income families and individulas. The taxpayers often receive Earned income Credits. This penalty would reduce these credits.
Perhaps most not mentioned by opponents is the fact that The lowest income taxpayers would be exempt from this requirement ( gross income under about $9,500).
So if an individual does not carry health insurance after 2014, the Feds aren't going to cart this person to jail or fine them, it simply means that the taxpayer will not enjoy all of his/her normal tax deductions--- that all folks.

Mandatory Employer provided insurance:
Again, here is a summary of this requirement:
Employer Mandate
Effective in 2014, employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer coverage and have at least one fulltime
employee who receives a premium tax credit will be fined an amount equal to $2,000 per full-time employee,
excluding the first 30 employees from the assessment. Employers with more than 50 employees that do offer coverage
but have at least one full-time employee receiving a premium tax credit because coverage is “unaffordable,”
will pay the lesser of $3,000 for each employee receiving a premium credit or $750 for each fulltime employee.
Coverage would be considered “unaffordable” if the premiums for the class of coverage selected by the employee
exceed 9.5 percent of family income (down from 9.8 percent in H.R. 3590). Employers with 50 or fewer employees
are exempt.

The key factor is that employers with less than 50 employees will be exempt from this requirement.

I don't mean to be an advocate for this legislation (because I'm not), but thought information on what the law actually is might be helpful in ya'lls ***** sessions.

[RCARNEY]

Glen,
I have not read the 2000+ pages of the bill, nor do I expect that you and most of the 535 clowns in D.C. have read it either. More than likely there are numerous sections that would at least cloud or counter the two that you posted.
***** sessions are warranted when Madam Speaker says the bill needs to be passed so we can learn what is in it, not to mention the bribes used to buy votes.

[clt_capt]

Glenn,
One of my issues with the recent legislation is the fact that it is seemingly targeted at Insurance Companies - but fails to open the market for competition.

My biggest issues with the so-called "Healthcare Reform" is that it really does NOTHING to reform healthcare...

1)The idea of using the ER as a walk in clinic is crazy - but that's what happens and will continue to happen...

2) Absurd awards for simple human error - Not addressed

3) Electronic Medical records - to provide consistent care
and to determine what proactive treatment should be applied.

4) Nothing to actually improve health

Keeping pre-existing conditions from refusing coverage is a positive - But I think it would have been resolved by allowing a competitive market...

BUT the biggest ISSUE I have is that Most if not all of the lawmakers have not read the bill cover to cover. For landmark legislation like this don't you think there is a responsibility?

[Glenn W]

Glen,
I have not read the 2000+ pages of the bill, nor do I expect that you and most of the 535 clowns in D.C. have read it either. More than likely there are numerous sections that would at least cloud or counter the two that you posted.
***** sessions are warranted when Madam Speaker says the bill needs to be passed so we can learn what is in it, not to mention the bribes used to buy votes.

***** on bro----
Athough clearly not the sentiment of some posters on Mix it up, my thinking is it's always better to know,or at least have a clue, as to what you're complaining about rather than bitching under a cloak of total ignorance.

Fred, your concerns mirrror mine to the tee. America has needed tort reform for the last 20+ years and the situation has gotten worse each year. What amazes me is the total flop in the stated theory of HMO's. That is, HMO's were initially thought to save money for insureds. But what has really happened over the years?
Physicians are so afraid of malpractice claims ( rightfully so), that virtually any visit to the doctor results in a referal to a specialist. The Primary care physician has now covered his ass and still receives his/her monthly payment from the HMO., the specialist receives his/payment from for an often unnecessary office visit that could have been easily dealt with by the General practitioner. Insurance losses (payments) are much higher simply due to Doctors covering their asses from malpractice claims ( again, I can't blame them).
IMO, effective tort reform would go a long way in reducing heath insurance costs.
You are also right about the increased visits to an ER--- mark our words, this will occur and will be felt down the road.

[clt_capt]

I get to see some of this first hand. My brother is a surgeon. His 2 biggest costs are 1) Malpractice and 2) Uninsured Write offs.

Most of the write offs occur in the ER.

These two items account for 50 - 60% of his income. I've heard this from many other doctors as well. These ridiculous
costs are a major reason that many doctors have either stopped practicing, or have decided not to specialize in areas where they are truly gifted. A great example is OB/GYN - Just about the highest Malpractice insurance out there.

When an alcoholic, smoker mother sues the OB/GYN for a birth defect - Everyone loses....

I guess my real point is that there is a lot of money in the Healthcare system today - Much of it is not going to Healthcare - it is going to lawyers, it is going to cover unnecessary procedures to cover someone's ass.

[longfisher]

...long ago. And, individual states previous to healthcare reform regulated their own insurance markets. Tort reform was billed as having the potential to reduce healthcare costs.

It didn't change a single thing about healthcare and its costs. So, why do others think it would do so on a national level?

I'm not opposed to tort reform. Heck it was good for Texas even though it didn't change anything in health care. But given our example, it's delusional to think that tort reform will do elsewhere what it didn't do here.

LongFisher

[RCARNEY]

"Athough clearly not the sentiment of some posters on Mix it up, my thinking is it's always better to know,or at least have a clue, as to what you're complaining about rather than bitching under a cloak of total ignorance."
Your point is to call who totally ignorant? and for what?

I suspect there would be more people less than totally ignorant who oppose the methods used to bring this unread bill to a vote than totally ignorant people in favor of it, as I suspect those opposed have been following this for a year. (I could be wrong) sorry for run-on sentence, rough night

Lack of tort reform, as stated, is a major issue. The stated goal of one payor system is another. The list goes on. Not trying to get into a pissin match with you.

[longfisher]

HMOs had an enormously positive impact on reducing the every-upwardly spiraling cost of health care...for about a decade. HMOs hardly exist anymore and have been largely replaced by PPOs. PPOs are the vehicles for the renewed upwardly-spriraling costs of healthcare.

What happened?

Doctors and the AMA killed HMO, largely. Why? Too restrictive and too limiting on their incomes.

So, they ran a successful multi-decade propoganda campaign to convince Americans that HMOs stranded them without approval of care when they needed it most, when it was life-threatening, and that being able to choose and stay with your own choice of doctors was a God-given right never to be violated by man.

So, the narrative had a villain and a hero, HMOs and doctors, respectively. I was an alluring narrative, but it was also false. Improved regulation would have solved virtually all the problems with denial of care and would have kept HMOs in the quiver of fixes for healthcare costs. But the AMA saw to it that this never happened.

When the public pressure to reduce costs was replaced with public pressure to do away with the only reasonably effective vehicle to do just that it all came crumbling down.

LongFisher

[gottaflylee]

When this is good enough for all the members of Congress and the Senate as well as the president to only use it, then it will be good enough for me to have it...

[Big Fish Billy]

There you go, all for one, one for all, and as the Three Stoogers said long before Obama care, "every man for himself"........