usvi-on-line
Health care reform:
I still think the junk food tax is a good way to raise revenue and maybe make us healthier. I am sure there are good lobbyists out there making sure that doesn't happen. 
I am like a dog with a bone sometimes
I don't understand the penalty. It feels like it is taking away our free will. In another recent topic we were talking about high deductibles and under this bill we would have to have "qualifying" insurance.
Also, we give our employees Section 105 Medical Reimbursement. Our employees, with the exception of one, all have working spouse who get health care through their employer. Most of the time they have to pay for the family portion of it out of pocket. We give our employees money to pay that portion. What good will it do our employees to offer them health care? It wouldn't and that is why we chose the section 105. This legislation is hurting us and our employees more than it is helping.
Section 105 is a self-funded health plan, where the employer has chosen not to insure health care benefits and to self-fund these benefits rather than pay premiums to an insurer. Our employees get the money tax free to use for their premiums--one employee uses to money for a single policy and is able to pick his own insurance.
GG
I am like a dog with a bone sometimes .The bill includes mandates for individuals to purchase and businesses to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Individual penalty is 2.5 percent of gross income unless they get a waiver. Businesses that don't offer insurance pay a fine equal to 8 percent of their payroll. Businesses with a payroll of less than $500,000 are exempt from the mandate
I don't understand the penalty. It feels like it is taking away our free will. In another recent topic we were talking about high deductibles and under this bill we would have to have "qualifying" insurance.
Also, we give our employees Section 105 Medical Reimbursement. Our employees, with the exception of one, all have working spouse who get health care through their employer. Most of the time they have to pay for the family portion of it out of pocket. We give our employees money to pay that portion. What good will it do our employees to offer them health care? It wouldn't and that is why we chose the section 105. This legislation is hurting us and our employees more than it is helping.
Section 105 is a self-funded health plan, where the employer has chosen not to insure health care benefits and to self-fund these benefits rather than pay premiums to an insurer. Our employees get the money tax free to use for their premiums--one employee uses to money for a single policy and is able to pick his own insurance.
GG
I have not seen that - I have read the opposite from several sources:SJfromNJ wrote:Anthony - you forgot to add that it add billions to the federal seficit.
"The Senate Finance Committee's health care overhaul effort got a boost Wednesday when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would cost $829 billion and reduce the federal deficit by $81 billion over the next 10 years."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20091 ... hy/3328354
Anthony for Virgin Islands On Line
soxfan22 wrote:Ouch. You hit me right where it hurts, GG. We should know our fate by Thanksgiving.XOXO wrote:Johnson and Johnson is profitable and they are going to lay people off. GG
That is the second time this week. I just heard it on TV and wanted to impress you with my knowledge 
I just wasn't thinking. When I think of Johnson and Johnson I think of baby shampoo. What is the deal with the layoffs?? They would be foolish to lose you!! Especially with the way you cut corners with a sandwich, crappy chips, and an apple!
I wish you luck!
GG
[quote="SJfromNJ]
When was the last time a CBO score for a Bill was even close to reality? [/quote]
I love these debates. When CBO helps you prove a point, you wave it like a flag. When it disproves your point, you dismiss it as unreliable. You can't have it both ways.
JIM
When was the last time a CBO score for a Bill was even close to reality? [/quote]
I love these debates.
When CBO helps you prove a point, you wave it like a flag. When it disproves your point, you dismiss it as unreliable. You can't have it both ways.JIM
Man it's like some dream we live down here....
Didn't CBO also say that this bill does nothing to lower health care premiums?jimg20 wrote:I love these debates.
JIM
Wasn't that one of the goals at the outset of this ridiculous process?
I love how the goal line keeps changing...
This thing is 100% political. All you need to know to understand that is the "rush" and "urgency" that has been placed on a bill that won't see imlementation until 2013.
What happens next year again?
What happens in 2012?
Oh.
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
I don't know - did it? Here is the CBO letter to Baucus - I don't see where it says anything about what it will do to existing premiums.soxfan22 wrote: Didn't CBO also say that this bill does nothing to lower health care premiums?
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc106 ... letter.pdf
It is long and detailed, and does say "Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty" - but how it will effect current premiums is not mentioned (at least I didn't see it - I read it pretty fast).
I am most troubled by the part about:
"the proposal would establish a requirement for such residents to obtain insurance and would in many cases impose a financial penalty on people who did not do so"
And it does also say it would add to the deficit in the beginning (if I am reading it correctly) - the savings are projected to come later and I think the projection window is 10 years.
Anthony for Virgin Islands On Line
[quote="soxfan22"
I love how the goal line keeps changing...
This thing is 100% political. All you need to know to understand that is the "rush" and "urgency" that has been placed on a bill that won't see imlementation until 2013.
[/quote]
I get the strategy here. Let's complain that they came in here with a fixed plan that they want to make us accept. Then when they change it we'll complain that they keep moving the goal line. Let's also complain that the are making this rapid change to health care. Oh, they are not going to implement it right away? OK, we'll complain that they are delaying the process.
Don't you guys think we can remember the earlier arguments? Don't you think it matters? Is this the part where you complain that the majority party is flip-flopping on this issue? (Sorry Flip Flop. That was not directed at you personally.
) You had your hands on the controls for all those years. Why didn't you put a better plan in place? Could it be that you don't have a better plan?
My experience in health care is in EMS. I took people to the emergency room to be cared for because they had no insurance, no doctor and they had a rather minor health concern. They went there because they knew that the hospital had to care for them regardless of their ability to pay. Some of them met me at the front door with a sack lunch in their hand because they were planning on spending the day getting this care. How did they know to do this? They've done this many times before. We took them to the local tax-payer-supported hospital for that care. They did not pay for the care, but we tax payers did. This is the most expensive place to get that care. They tied up rooms, people and resouces (lab, x-ray, social workers) that could have been better used caring for the people who had a real emergency.
My goal is to give these people a card that will get any health care provider paid a reasonable fee for providing that routine medical care in a doctor's office or doc-in-the-box or some other non-emergency setting. In short, I want them to get their routine care they way we, who have insurance, do by going to our family doctor. Then, when they have that episode of chest pain or are injured in a car accident, they will be better served in the emergency room. That will happen if we can get the people with alergies and a three-day-old stomach ache out of the ER waiting room. We can then refocus our emergency rooms on true emergencies. We can lower the cost of running our charity hospitals by taking their very expensive care to a lower cost facility that can provide appropriate care.
JIM
I love how the goal line keeps changing...
This thing is 100% political. All you need to know to understand that is the "rush" and "urgency" that has been placed on a bill that won't see imlementation until 2013.
[/quote]
I get the strategy here. Let's complain that they came in here with a fixed plan that they want to make us accept. Then when they change it we'll complain that they keep moving the goal line. Let's also complain that the are making this rapid change to health care. Oh, they are not going to implement it right away?
OK, we'll complain that they are delaying the process.Don't you guys think we can remember the earlier arguments? Don't you think it matters? Is this the part where you complain that the majority party is flip-flopping on this issue? (Sorry Flip Flop. That was not directed at you personally.
) You had your hands on the controls for all those years. Why didn't you put a better plan in place? Could it be that you don't have a better plan?My experience in health care is in EMS. I took people to the emergency room to be cared for because they had no insurance, no doctor and they had a rather minor health concern. They went there because they knew that the hospital had to care for them regardless of their ability to pay. Some of them met me at the front door with a sack lunch in their hand because they were planning on spending the day getting this care. How did they know to do this? They've done this many times before. We took them to the local tax-payer-supported hospital for that care. They did not pay for the care, but we tax payers did. This is the most expensive place to get that care. They tied up rooms, people and resouces (lab, x-ray, social workers) that could have been better used caring for the people who had a real emergency.
My goal is to give these people a card that will get any health care provider paid a reasonable fee for providing that routine medical care in a doctor's office or doc-in-the-box or some other non-emergency setting. In short, I want them to get their routine care they way we, who have insurance, do by going to our family doctor. Then, when they have that episode of chest pain or are injured in a car accident, they will be better served in the emergency room. That will happen if we can get the people with alergies and a three-day-old stomach ache out of the ER waiting room. We can then refocus our emergency rooms on true emergencies. We can lower the cost of running our charity hospitals by taking their very expensive care to a lower cost facility that can provide appropriate care.
JIM
Man it's like some dream we live down here....
Jim -
My problem is this...
According to Obama, this is a crisis of epic proportions, and we don't have the luxury of time to debate such a pressing, immediate, catastrophic issue.
Common sense tells me differently...
He has limited time to get this done because of the election year next year. As last Tuesday proved, the public is generally pissed. This man has the lowest approval ratings of any president other than, I believe, Jimmy Carter at the same points in their administrations. We had a summer of dicontent, to say the least.
Unemployment is in the crapper, and really shows no signs of turning around (highest in 26 years). Companies are still not hiring, which is predictable given the Keynesian policies (government spending to facilitate an economic turnaround) that he has employed.
If this is so important, why wait until 2013 to implement? Surely it cannot take 4 complete years to get off the ground? Although, it is a new beaurocracy, so maybe that is the case?
You're a smart guy...You should be able to read the tea leaves, Jim.
Although, following a Marxist ideology does require some amount of naivete...Or to borrow a line from Hillary "The Willing Suspension of Disbelief". Great line.
Another favorite Reagan quote of mine..."How do you tell a Socialist? They read Marx and Lenin...How do you tell a Capitalist? They understand Marx and Lenin".
Oh, and under Republican stewardship, millions if elderly gained access to prescription drug benefit. Whether or not I agree with it, you should.
My problem is this...
According to Obama, this is a crisis of epic proportions, and we don't have the luxury of time to debate such a pressing, immediate, catastrophic issue.
Common sense tells me differently...
He has limited time to get this done because of the election year next year. As last Tuesday proved, the public is generally pissed. This man has the lowest approval ratings of any president other than, I believe, Jimmy Carter at the same points in their administrations. We had a summer of dicontent, to say the least.
Unemployment is in the crapper, and really shows no signs of turning around (highest in 26 years). Companies are still not hiring, which is predictable given the Keynesian policies (government spending to facilitate an economic turnaround) that he has employed.
If this is so important, why wait until 2013 to implement? Surely it cannot take 4 complete years to get off the ground? Although, it is a new beaurocracy, so maybe that is the case?
You're a smart guy...You should be able to read the tea leaves, Jim.
Although, following a Marxist ideology does require some amount of naivete...Or to borrow a line from Hillary "The Willing Suspension of Disbelief". Great line.
Another favorite Reagan quote of mine..."How do you tell a Socialist? They read Marx and Lenin...How do you tell a Capitalist? They understand Marx and Lenin".
Oh, and under Republican stewardship, millions if elderly gained access to prescription drug benefit. Whether or not I agree with it, you should.
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
Ok, I got paste and copy crazy but I think it is important to know what we are getting.
jimg20: I understand where you are coming from with the example you gave. I can't figure out what "we" plan on doing with illegal immigrants. Won't it work the same as you described? They won't have insurance and taxpayers will still have to pay, right?
Also, remember with Connie that we were talking about getting a high deductible policy if you are healthy. Obamacare would eliminate that because we have to have a "quality" plan; Via CNN
jimg20: I understand where you are coming from with the example you gave. I can't figure out what "we" plan on doing with illegal immigrants. Won't it work the same as you described? They won't have insurance and taxpayers will still have to pay, right?
Anthony: I tried to find it in CBO too but didn't. I read this from Fox. premiums would increase:Anthony wrote: I don't know - did it? Here is the CBO letter to Baucus - I don't see where it says anything about what it will do to existing premiums.
I am most troubled by the part about:
"the proposal would establish a requirement for such residents to obtain insurance and would in many cases impose a financial penalty on people who did not do so"
And it does also say it would add to the deficit in the beginning (if I am reading it correctly) - the savings are projected to come later and I think the projection window is 10 years.
Anthony, I also think this is unfair, via CNN:In fact, the CBO report said such a public plan "would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums" for private plans in the newly created insurance marketplace. This is partly because the public plan would likely attract less healthy, and more expensive, enrollees.
In addition, many analysts and lawmakers have warned that private premiums will go up as well as a result of new requirements.
Though the government is offering a bevy of subsidies to make coverage more affordable under the plan, it apparently would not be enough to lure everyone into the system.
.Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured. . . It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.
Also, remember with Connie that we were talking about getting a high deductible policy if you are healthy. Obamacare would eliminate that because we have to have a "quality" plan; Via CNN
Do you like your Doctor?? Via CNNThe bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses
Via CNN: explains the lone republican and what I dislike so much about Washington:The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists. . . The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago.
Will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi give up her current policy and get the one she wants us to have??Cao acknowledged he extracted some White House pledges to help his district deal with the continuing impact of Hurricane Katrina in exchange for his vote. Asked about the reaction of fellow Republicans, Cao said the party's leaders "respect my decision, and I respect theirs."
Last edited by XOXO on Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'll do a little copying and pasting as well. From this morning's WSJ...Italics are my commentary:
Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
This one is great...I am not too far from here...Why should I continue working in such a high stress environment? What is the motivation? I pay about $6k/year now for a family of four...It's great insurance. But I work for it...Why should I continue to do so if the government is going to take 20% of my pretax income JUST IN HEALTHCARE? Nevermind the other BS they tax us for.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
Interesting...If anyone thinks illegals will NOT be covered in whatever plan ends up passing, well, I have a bridge in Chappaquiddick that I'd like to sell you.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Beautiful...Docs need more people telling them how they should practice medicine.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
Ahh...more Obama/Pelosi/Marx social justice. Love it.
Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
This one is great...I am not too far from here...Why should I continue working in such a high stress environment? What is the motivation? I pay about $6k/year now for a family of four...It's great insurance. But I work for it...Why should I continue to do so if the government is going to take 20% of my pretax income JUST IN HEALTHCARE? Nevermind the other BS they tax us for.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
Interesting...If anyone thinks illegals will NOT be covered in whatever plan ends up passing, well, I have a bridge in Chappaquiddick that I'd like to sell you.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Beautiful...Docs need more people telling them how they should practice medicine.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
Ahh...more Obama/Pelosi/Marx social justice. Love it.
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
I don't want to be pestimistic but I really think this legislation will get pushed through. Look at the strong arm tatics that are being reported for the house vote. What will stop that from happening in the senate?
GG
Sox, that is about what we pay right now also. It makes me so angry that we can't choose. Given paying $15,000 for insurance or getting catrosophic insurance I would choose the latter . . . except that I can't.This one is great...I am not too far from here...Why should I continue working in such a high stress environment? What is the motivation? I pay about $6k/year now for a family of four...It's great insurance. But I work for it...Why should I continue to do so if the government is going to take 20% of my pretax income JUST IN HEALTHCARE? Nevermind the other BS they tax us for.
GG
We live in a partisan political world. You can't honestly complain about a bill being written and passed by a majority. They're the majority at the moment - both sides do it!
I also don't think this is about the presidents popularity. I don't think historically Obama's popularity is anything other than normal right now. See this page for some historical comparisons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... val_rating
I am enjoying the debate but I hope we keep it on the bill and not ideologies. Like I said, there are parts of the bill I find strange and I want to understand it better. I wish all news outlets did a better job of talking about the facts of it.
Obama ran a campaign saying he was going to reform health care, he won the election, and he along with congress is trying to do it. Not everyone is going to agree with it (and there has been vocal opposition, duly noted, but that opposition has been in the minority), but I hardly think it is surprising! That was why I originally responded to XOXO's post - this has been coming for 2 years - so I was just questioning the phrase "shoved this down our throats".
If this thing stinks so bad, and if more people disagree than agree with it, then future elections will bear that out and new bills will be introduced to change it. I mean that is how it works (even if it seems not to) and that is not going to change. That is why I don't get these arguments about our freedom is gone, etc. etc.
I also don't think this is about the presidents popularity. I don't think historically Obama's popularity is anything other than normal right now. See this page for some historical comparisons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... val_rating
I am enjoying the debate but I hope we keep it on the bill and not ideologies. Like I said, there are parts of the bill I find strange and I want to understand it better. I wish all news outlets did a better job of talking about the facts of it.
Obama ran a campaign saying he was going to reform health care, he won the election, and he along with congress is trying to do it. Not everyone is going to agree with it (and there has been vocal opposition, duly noted, but that opposition has been in the minority), but I hardly think it is surprising! That was why I originally responded to XOXO's post - this has been coming for 2 years - so I was just questioning the phrase "shoved this down our throats".
If this thing stinks so bad, and if more people disagree than agree with it, then future elections will bear that out and new bills will be introduced to change it. I mean that is how it works (even if it seems not to) and that is not going to change. That is why I don't get these arguments about our freedom is gone, etc. etc.
Anthony for Virgin Islands On Line