President Obama's Speech in Ghana

denise m

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Is your argument that the Health Care System will cost companies more? I don't know the plan he is proposing, but I know in our system the revenues are generated by income tax, so the financial burden is lifted off the business'. That's why it's not free health care. You pay for it out of your pay check. Many companies in Canada actually enhance their health benefits with dental plans, prescription plans etc. 

Under the plan proposed, yes, it will.  If companies do not pay for health insurance for their employees, the company would be charged a "penalty" tax equivalent to 8% of their annual payroll. 

Also, see above for my explanation of how an S Corp works.  There would be an additional surtax to pay for the government healthcare on those evil rich people (those making over $250K a year).  Many small businesses (small businesses employ something like 95% of Americans) are S Corps, and the company profits are reported on the shareholders (business owners) personal income tax returns.  So, say, for example you own a small business set up as an S Corp.  Your salary is $60K a year, but your company's annual net profit is $200K a year.  According to that year's tax return, you make $260K a year, even though most of that is the company profit and stays with the company, not in your pocket.  But according to the proposed plan, you'll get slapped with an additional 5% tax to cover the government's health insurance plan.

Oh, and this little gem came up today now that people have had a chance to read the bill.  Apparently there's a clause in there that says once the legislation goes into effect, private health insurance companies would no longer be allowed to take on new clients.  So, if you don't have it already, it would be illegal to get it privately, and if you change jobs, therefore losing your existing coverage, you can't go on a new one, you'd have to go on the government plan.  This one little paragraph in itself will completely eliminate all private health insurance in our country.  I don't know about anyone else, but that scares the pants off me!

aerial1313

Oh, and this little gem came up today now that people have had a chance to read the bill.  Apparently there's a clause in there that says once the legislation goes into effect, private health insurance companies would no longer be allowed to take on new clients.  So, if you don't have it already, it would be illegal to get it privately, and if you change jobs, therefore losing your existing coverage, you can't go on a new one, you'd have to go on the government plan.  This one little paragraph in itself will completely eliminate all private health insurance in our country.  I don't know about anyone else, but that scares the pants off me!

Can you provide a link to the bill, or something that's a direct quote from the bill of the above?  Because I'm finding it very, very difficult to believe it actually says that.

Heather,  even if that not true its still a huge problem. If you elect to buy private insurance, you will still liable to pay the government insurance through taxes. So basically you're paying for health insurance twice. Then because most people cannot afford that, private insurance companies will lose many of thier customers adn therefore existing customers premiums will increase. So yeah, how is that much of a choice and how is that competitive. Basically the government will have all the control. They will drive private insurance out of business and the consumers will be left with no choice but to accept subpar government care. What happened to my freedom of choice? Sure I have it now and maybe evewn still this year. But what about in a few years?

ewin0210

Heather,  even if that not true its still a huge problem. If you elect to buy private insurance, you will still liable to pay the government insurance through taxes. So basically you're paying for health insurance twice. Then because most people cannot afford that, private insurance companies will lose many of thier customers adn therefore existing customers premiums will increase. So yeah, how is that much of a choice and how is that competitive. Basically the government will have all the control. They will drive private insurance out of business and the consumers will be left with no choice but to accept subpar government care. What happened to my freedom of choice? Sure I have it now and maybe evewn still this year. But what about in a few years?

You hit the nail on the head.  I bolded your sentence because I think that's a very important point that most people aren't thinking about.

Here is the relevant paragraph of the bill, it's on page 16 of the 1,018 page bill (emphasis mine):

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

ewin0210

Heather,  even if that not true its still a huge problem. If you elect to buy private insurance, you will still liable to pay the government insurance through taxes.

Meh, it's not like this doesn't happen already.  I pay city income taxes but can't remember the last time I went to a local library or used a city park.  I don't use the city's trash or recycle pickup, but I still pay tax every year.  Same for state and federal.  Plenty of services that I've never used that I pay for, as an American citizen.

To me a huge problem is people in a developed nation not having any health coverage whatsoever.  I find that laughable and disturbing at the same time.

aerial1313

Here is the relevant paragraph of the bill, it's on page 16 of the 1,018 page bill (emphasis mine):

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

Maybe I'm dense (my legal background is limited to thirteen years as a legal assistant/paralegal), but I don't see how that can be extrapolated to mean that private insurers will be prevented from taking on new clients.  None of the analyses I'm reading are mentioning that as being a controversial aspect of the bill (and they are mentioning quite a few controversial points).  If it does indeed mean that, then I'm sure the insurance companies, with their armies of lawyers and paralegals and analysts, will very quickly be raising a hue and cry.

As far as my thoughts on it -- This is still very much a bill in progress, so it's difficult to meaningfully comment on specifics of it.  IMO it's a foregone conclusion that we need some reforms in our health care system.  We spend more on health care than any other industrialized nation, and yet we rank something like 37th in the world in the quality of our health care.  Something ain't right.

As far as paying for private insurance and paying a tax -- I have no issue with that if there is some benefit for my family.  And likely there would be.  I believe the bill as it currently stands does away with annual and lifetime caps on payments and does away with pre-existing conditions exclusions.  Also, if the new bill would make it possible for the DH and I to get affordable health coverage so that he could retire before we reach the eligibility age for Medicare, if we wouldn't have to worry that our insurance would be canceled or the premiums would skyrocket to unaffordable levels if one of us were to be diagnosed with cancer or some other very serious health issue, etc. -- then yes, we'd gladly be willing to pay more, whether that means via some sort of payroll tax or a cut in pay or future raises in order to help DH's employer cover the cost.

In Canada there are lots of private health insurance coverage available. Not everything is covered under the National program. Basically the federal gov't gives each province a certain amount of money for health care with a laundry list of things that each and every province must fund, but the province administer their own Health Care. Where I live for example there is no dental coverage, chiropractic, elective surgery etc. Some provinces use their tax base to enhance the federal program, some don't. What happens is as an individual you can buy insurance to cover anything extra or the company you work for offers extra coverage as part of their bonus plan.    

Seems pretty clear to me.  The House Ways and Means Committee reads it the same way I do.

Y1, BTW, refers to the first year this would become law.  So once the law is in effect, private insurance companies are not permitted to enroll any new people.

Here's an article discussing it:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854

An editorial that claims the House Ways and Means Committee agrees with their conclusions, but doesn't cite a direct quote from a ranking member of that committee, a statement released by the committee or anything else to prove the claim?  Not exactly a credible source of info, IMO!

There really doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable info available yet about this provision.  From what I can gather, this section refers to private plans that would be deemed by the government to be either qualifying plans or non-qualifying plans.  It is continuing enrollment in the non-qualifying plans that would not be allowed.  Enrollment in qualifying plans would continue to be available.

(My research on this is pieced together from a few sources that IMO seem at least somewhat reliable, but nothing I can claim with certainty is 100% accurate.  And of course a lot more research would need to be done (IMO) to make an informed decision about this section.  What constitutes a qualifying plan versus a non-qualifying one, what hoops will private insurance companies have to jump through in order to ensure their existing qualifying plans would remain that way, is it possible future government requirements could be so onerous that eventually there would be very few or no qualifying plans available, or that they would become so expensive that only the wealthy could afford them, etc., etc.) 

I do not want some czar in D.C. telling me what I can do when it comes to going to the doctor.This country is suppose to be a constitutional republic and not what we have now a nanny state.

Aerial, you beat me to it. The provision basically means that if you don't already have your health care coverage and selected health care provider (your favorite doctor) by the start date, you can't get one afterward.

So let me put in terms that can be understood. After Y1, you feel like your ob-gyn isn't handling your case the way you should. Or your friend has an ob-gyn that you really like and is highly recommended. Too late, you don't get to specify that physician. You're going to go the doctor the administration sends you to. And yes, deductions will be taken out of your check for public healthcare, in addition to whatever you pay for your own insurance. This is what happens in Canada. Case in point, a guy had a tumor in his leg but was treated immediately. A woman had a tumor in her brain and was told to wait 6 months for treatment. So, after paying for health coverage all that time, she could wait and die or she could come to America. She's borrowed 100,000 dollars but she got her treatment in America, where the govt, as yet, does not tell you to wait 6 months for a removal of a tumor near the ocular nerve.

Of course, with public health coverage will come "end of life" counseling for the elderly. As the budget will require limiting medications and treatment, it will become managable to let the elderly die off because it's cheaper. It's a possibility that the canadian woman would have had the surgery sooner if she could have afforded private health care coverage instead of having it taken out of her check so the govt could tell her which doctor she is going to and how long she must wait. The govt does not have to follow the hippocratic oath. They just have to try and balance the budget.

A little scary giggle, I just had a flash memory of the movie "Soylent Green" with Charlton Heston.

Myra, I totally agree that more research should be done. All the more reason that congress shouldn't bum-rush this through congress.

And they are learning. The House passed the crap and frayed, I mean cap and trade bill without reading it. A large number of citizens voiced their disapproval of it and the Senate has put the bill on hold, some from House dems telling their Sen dems to put a hold on it. And plenty of Sens are now reading it carefully, including Sen Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has been a watchdog since the start.

If we don't know exactly what we are getting, why vote for it?

And yes, just because we might have more taxes taken out for public health doesn't mean companies get out of paying for the public health. Paying increased income taxes will continue to pay for that. The govt does not differentiate between what taxes are for what. It goes into general fund.

ron2

This is what happens in Canada. Case in point, a guy had a tumor in his leg but was treated immediately. A woman had a tumor in her brain and was told to wait 6 months for treatment. So, after paying for health coverage all that time, she could wait and die or she could come to America. She's borrowed 100,000 dollars but she got her treatment in America, where the govt, as yet, does not tell you to wait 6 months for a removal of a tumor near the ocular nerve.

I'm sorry but I couldn't let this go without a response. No one said the Canadian system was perfect but if you want to swap horror stories....

Six Florida adults die every day because they lack health insurance and Florida appears to have one of the highest death rates due to its uninsured population, according to a national healthcare consumer group.

The deaths are among working-age adults aged 25 to 64, according to Families USA, based in Washington, D.C.

In 2006 alone, 2,400 people died in the state because they lacked health insurance and went without proper medical treatment.

For the six-year period from 2000 through 2006, more than 13,600 working-age adults died in Florida, said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.

“The lack of health insurance coverage is a matter of life and death for many Floridians,” he said.

Across the United States, twice as many people died in 2006 due to not having insurance than died from homicide, he said.

A myriad of factors come into play, namely not getting preventive care early on, having to make the choice of buying medications or putting food on the table, and because of undiagnosed diseases going untreated because of lack of access to medical care. The uninsured use the emergency room when they become sick and delay getting treatment.

Uninsured adults are 25 percent more likely to die premature than adults with insurance, according to the findings.

So far, Families USA has examined the death rate of uninsured adults in 15 states and Texas’ death rate report could surpass Florida’s.

“Florida is very high. Six deaths per day and 2,400 deaths in 2006 is very high,” he said.

U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla, said during a conference call with Families USA that the issue is mind boggling.

“This is a really significant problem in Florida and this is one of the No. 1 issues that people say at the town hall meetings and at the soccer field,” she said.

The most disturbing figure is that twice the number of people are dying from not being insured compared to murder. If the figures were reversed, there would be much more media attention, she said.

Families USA drew on findings from the Institute of Medicine that reported 18,000 adults died nationwide in 2000 because of the lack of insurance to arrive at the state numbers, along with The Urban Institute that updated the figures and said 22,000 adults died in 2006 because they went without coverage.

ron2

Of course, with public health coverage will come "end of life" counseling for the elderly. As the budget will require limiting medications and treatment, it will become managable to let the elderly die off because it's cheaper.

Yeah, Canada just lets their old people die here to save a few bucks. I guess that explains why Canada's life expectancy is ranked 14th in the world at 80.34 years and USA is ranked 45th at 78.09 years.

As for selecting your doctor, no the Canadian gov't does not have anything to do with which doctor you go to. Your family doctor is a personal choice. Our family have three and they were all referred through friends and family.