Obamacare, what says the Constitution?

[road kill]

I like your Congress woman!!

[Buzz]

An independent analysis by the Lewin Group found that 114 million Americans (that's a third of the country) would eventually lose their current insurance as businesses shifted employees to the new government plan.

I wonder why she neglected to tell you in her letter that the "Independent Lewin Group" is owned by United Health Care?

http://www.healthjournalism.org/blog...vate-insurers/

Yup, I bet everything they want to tell you is pretty factual.

[Harry Gooch]

Sadly Buzz I trust United Health Care more than I trust my goverment.

[YardleyLabs]

It is certainly more specific and concrete than most critiques. I've made some comments on the specific factual assertions below:

This bill would create a "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" which will determine what health coverage you must purchase, and will tax you if you do not buy coverage that meets their demands, whether you want (or need) that coverage or not-and whether you think you can afford that coverage or not.

Absolutely, though not stated in a very balanced fashion. The bill defines a minimum standard for what would constitute a "qualified" health insurance plan. Ultimately, employers over a defined size would be required to offer a qualified plan to all employees with a minimum required employer contribution to void a tax for non-compliance. Similarly, individuals would be required to purchase coverage through a qualified plan or pay a tax. This is the basis for ensuring virtually universal coverage. Coverage would not actually b universal since some employers and individuals would still choose not to purchase coverage and because illegal aliens are excluded from receiving any benefits under the program.

HR 3200 also creates a new government-run insurance plan which will ultimately reduce access to healthcare for anyone on it. This government-run plan will almost certainly compensate physicians and hospitals at Medicare rates or something close to that. These rates are usually much lower than market rates, which is why it's sometimes difficult for Medicare beneficiaries to find a doctor as a new patient. This means that Hospitals and doctors will have to cut staff and other costs, which will hurt the quality of healthcare offered in America.

Under HR 3200 the government would offer a plan that at least met the minimum standard for a qualified plan. The government plan would be precluded from receiving any public subsidies but would be able to negotiate reimbursement rates with providers just as do all other insurance carriers. Restrictions are provided that would limit the ability of employers to drop existing plans and move employees to the government sponsored plan. Overall, insurance companies are anticipating a massive increase in sales volume if the new program passes because of the large number of new people who will be able to purchase coverage with the help of government subsidies. There appears to be little basis for the assertions concerning unfair competition by a government sponsored insurance plan. Many providers now receive lower rates through managed care programs than they do through Medicare.

To pay for all of this new bureaucracy, the bill includes more than $800 Billion in new tax hikes, including tax hikes on small businesses. The President's own Chief Economic Advisor has stated that these new taxes would kill 4.7 million American jobs. An independent analysis by the Lewin Group found that 114 million Americans (that's a third of the country) would eventually lose their current insurance as businesses shifted employees to the new government plan.

These are two claims with convoluted histories. First, the statement that the President's own Chief Economic Advisor said that new health care taxes would cost 4.7 million jobs is completely false. It's like one of those stories passed from person to person in a circle and at the end it no longer resembles what it was at the beginning. The CBO estimated that over 10 years that HR 200 would increase the deficit by $239 billion. That increase is actually related to a single provision which defers implementing reimbursement rate cuts under Medicare as required by a 1996 law. Such a deferral has happened every year since the law was first passed because the required rate cuts were considered unacceptable since physician rates are already believed to be too low by most. That single provision costs $245 billion over 10 years and has no relationship to the overall proposal for health reform. If you remove it from the package, the CBO estimates actually show a $6 billion reduction in the deifict associated with the provisions of HR 3200. The next step in the story was that Boehner issued a statement that using the same types of analysis used by Obama's economic advisor, a new tax of $439 billion would cost 4.7 million jobs. That evolved over time into the statement that the chief economic advisor said HR 3200 would cause the loss of 4.7 million jobs. The fact that the chief economic advisor said this wasn't true has been lost in the shouting. With respect to the Lewin Group study, it is even murkier. The supposedly "non-partisan" Lewin Group is owned by United Health Care, a managed care organization that routinely limits how much service its insured population may receive. The study, developed for Congressional Republicans, makes some fairly outrageous assumptions about how a government plan would be operated to suggest that 114 million people would purchase or have their coverage purchased through a government sponsored plan. Why would this happen? Because it assumes that the government plan would offer more service at a lower price. I guess that is what is meant by government inefficiency.

Despite claims that reform will reduce health care costs, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office recently noted this health care plan would "probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits."

This is the $239 billion cost noted above. Removing the elmination of reimbursement rate cots required by the 1996 law that both Republicans and Democrats have voted to defer each year for a decade eliminates the entire projected increase in deficit.

The bill also exempts employer coverage from the new federal insurance mandates in the bill, but only for 5 years. This will further encourage employers to drop coverage and put employees on the new government plan.

The plan phases in the requirement that employers offer plans that conform to the minimum standard for a qualified plan. For the approximately 25% of employers that now offer plans that do not meet the defined standard, they will need to enrich their plans (probably through their existing carriers) or pay a penalty.

HR 3200 contains NO savings from tort reform or reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the system. Attempts to inject sensible policies to ensure fair payment rates, restrict access to taxpayer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants, improve Medicare's ability to fight fraud, among many others, were rejected during committee consideration of the bill. I also find it telling that an amendment that would have required Members of Congress to use the new government-run plan if the bill passed was also rejected in Committee. I cosponsored this amendment, and I believe it would have provided a necessary show of good faith if it had been accepted.
Instead, we can assist small businesses with insurance coverage, promote transparency in insurance marketing, provide premium assistance for the needy, and create a meaningful health insurance portal that fosters true price competition between the 1,300 health insurance companies in the U.S. We should extend tax benefits to those who purchase their own insurance, quickly implement health IT software standards, eliminate pre-existing condition restrictions, and give Medicare and Medicaid more resources and authority to truly combat the waste and fraud that everyone knows exists.

Actually the plan provides for almost every savngs program recommended in this letter. However, the CBO declined to estimate any savings from these efforts.

[Nor_Cal_Angler]

Yardly,

Again, I say based on this bill's own wording I am striped of my Freedom of Choice!!!!!!!!!!

You again cited the "fact" that individuals (and employers) would be REQUIRED to purchase a "qualified" plan or "pay a tax" essentially a PENILITY.

So I will try to sum it up another way...

Freedom of Choice, is offered to women everyday in the form of Abortions...the people have voiced there opinions and the government has agreed with them, the supreme court has agreed as well. Women should have the FREEDOM of CHOICE with regard to there body and how they choose handle a pregnancy (as if you didn't know, Roe v Wade cited because some people think other people just make stuff up )

Now why is it that Women get the FREEDOM of choice without PENALITY or a tax upon them. But when I want to CHOOSE something that pertains to MY BODY. The GOVERNMENT is going to step in and say.....ahhhh ahhh ahhhh, no you cant do that, you have to pay a tax to do that.

Lets level the playing field here, lets make women that want to have an abortion, pay a tax to support the others that DONT WANT TO HAVE AN ABORTION. Or wait, I guess according to the current governments thought process it would be lets TAX women that DO NOT want to have abortions to help pay for women that do...

Now you'll probally say, that ABORTIONS are elective and the government doesnt have anything to do with it....

and I will say EXACTLY......it is ELECTIVE, it is a CHOICE, it is not forced upon anyone

I know its short, I know its sweet, but do you see that...its way out there, no no over there, look wayyyyyy out there...off in the distance...yea thats it, its LIGHT and its at the end of a tunnel.....the people are speaking and they are saying LET ME HAVE MY CHOICE, not YOURS.

NCA

[dnf777]

Yardly,

Again, I say based on this bill's own wording I am striped of my Freedom of Choice!!!!!!!!!!

You again cited the "fact" that individuals (and employers) would be REQUIRED to purchase a "qualified" plan or "pay a tax" essentially a PENILITY.

So I will try to sum it up another way...

Freedom of Choice, is offered to women everyday in the form of Abortions...the people have voiced there opinions and the government has agreed with them, the supreme court has agreed as well. Women should have the FREEDOM of CHOICE with regard to there body and how they choose handle a pregnancy (as if you didn't know, Roe v Wade cited because some people think other people just make stuff up )

Now why is it that Women get the FREEDOM of choice without PENALITY or a tax upon them. But when I want to CHOOSE something that pertains to MY BODY. The GOVERNMENT is going to step in and say.....ahhhh ahhh ahhhh, no you cant do that, you have to pay a tax to do that.

Lets level the playing field here, lets make women that want to have an abortion, pay a tax to support the others that DONT WANT TO HAVE AN ABORTION. Or wait, I guess according to the current governments thought process it would be lets TAX women that DO NOT want to have abortions to help pay for women that do...

Now you'll probally say, that ABORTIONS are elective and the government doesnt have anything to do with it....

and I will say EXACTLY......it is ELECTIVE, it is a CHOICE, it is not forced upon anyone

I know its short, I know its sweet, but do you see that...its way out there, no no over there, look wayyyyyy out there...off in the distance...yea thats it, its LIGHT and its at the end of a tunnel.....the people are speaking and they are saying LET ME HAVE MY CHOICE, not YOURS.

NCA

Have you protested to your state about having to have auto-insurance? You're freedoms have been greatly violated if you can't drive without auto insurance. BTW, Roe v Wade makes no reference to funding for abortion.

[Nor_Cal_Angler]

Have you protested to your state about having to have auto-insurance? You're freedoms have been greatly violated if you can't drive without auto insurance. BTW, Roe v Wade makes no reference to funding for abortion.

Well you bit the bullet first...

That is my exact point..........the governement IS making reference to FUNDING from ME for my CHOICE to NOT go along with the plan..... ITS WRONG!!!!!!!!



and the rebuttal to your auto insurance example is simple....I can choose to not have auto insurance, and if i choose to not have auto insurance I CAN CHOOSE NOT TO DRIVE. And if I do drive, and something bad does happen I PAY THE PRICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no worries when choosing not to have auto insurance, that the govenment is going to take money from my pay check. When and if they do decide to take money from my pay check for not having auto insurance I will take up the same fight I am fighting today.

pretty simple.

NCA

[dnf777]

Well you bit the bullet first...

That is my exact point..........the governement IS making reference to FUNDING from ME for my CHOICE to NOT go along with the plan..... ITS WRONG!!!!!!!!



and the rebuttal to your auto insurance example is simple....I can choose to not have auto insurance, and if i choose to not have auto insurance I CAN CHOOSE NOT TO DRIVE. And if I do drive, and something bad does happen I PAY THE PRICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no worries when choosing not to have auto insurance, that the govenment is going to take money from my pay check. When and if they do decide to take money from my pay check for not having auto insurance I will take up the same fight I am fighting today.

pretty simple.

NCA

You're really linking two separate issues here, that carry very different sets of circumstances. If you don't drive, you probably won't hurt anyone with a car. There's no way that you can guarantee not to get sick or injured, and pose financial burden to society if you don't pay your own health bills. (I don't think any of us want a society that would turn away non-insured sick people that can't pay up front)

You're right, I did bite the bullet. I was struggling to figure out what RvW had to do with the health reform bill. I *think* I see the connection you were making.

[Buzz]

Nor Cal Angler,

If you don't want insurance, then maybe we need a provision that allows you to sign an agreement asking that you receive no medical treatment if you fall ill or have an accident, but are unable to pay. The concept works fine for me.

[Nor_Cal_Angler]

Nor Cal Angler,

If you don't want insurance, then maybe we need a provision that allows you to sign an agreement asking that you receive no medical treatment if you fall ill or have an accident, but are unable to pay. The concept works fine for me.

Great it wont cost YOU anything, and it wont cost me anything.

look, I have health benifits, I love them, they are employer provided with a portion comming out of my check to "fill the gap" I am fighting this on PRINCIPAL. I do not want GOVERNMENT getting any more CLAWS into my back.

Whats good for the GOOSE is NOT always good for the gander.......cuz that flock that follows the one on my fields.....well the flock dont fly away.


NCA