Timeline of Major Provisions in Health Care Plan

[Nobunaga]

... Take a look at what's coming.

... Let's discuss specifics here, there's a lot in there.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.g ... elinel.pdf

[jbrettlip]

It isn't going to happen. This law will be repealed or overturned in the courts.

[Titanic]

It isn't going to happen. This law will be repealed or overturned in the courts.

I can't wait until you're proved wrong and then go with the "Republicans will repeal it in 2012" line, which will also never happen.

[Nobunaga]

... I also believe it won't be repealed.

... People get used to things, especially something for nothing type things. In the years ahead when it begins to become problematic we will be faced with two choices: repeal it or raise taxes. Historically, we always choose to raise taxes, as the top 15% are the ones made to pay 90% of the bill (and most of us aren't in that top 15%).

... Americans should all be made to get very sick or injured while overseas. It's a learning experience.

...

[jbrettlip]

Repealing may not happen, but it is very likely to be overturned or so many states just disregarding it, it will prove to be ineffectual.

[GabonX]

The only thing that's certain right now is that this plan will be challenged in the courts.

Whether or not the Supreme Court will hear the case and what they would rule is all conjecture.

[captainwalrus]

... I also believe it won't be repealed.

... People get used to things, especially something for nothing type things. In the years ahead when it begins to become problematic we will be faced with two choices: repeal it or raise taxes. Historically, we always choose to raise taxes, as the top 15% are the ones made to pay 90% of the bill (and most of us aren't in that top 15%).

As a member of that top 15%, I still see no problem with that solution.

[DangerBoy]

... I also believe it won't be repealed.

I happen to think it will be repealed. Other entitlement programs had support from both parties. There was also broad appeal from the public. But with this program people are outraged. The 2010 election is just the beginning by removing from office the people who voted for this.

[Snorri1234]

Repealing may not happen, but it is very likely to be overturned or so many states just disregarding it, it will prove to be ineffectual.

Just like with the stimulus-bill, senators and others who voted against it surely will not take credit for things in it suddenly. No sir. They have integrity.

[Nobunaga]

From 2011:

"Prohibition on Medicare payments to new physician‐owned hospitals"

... What's this all about?


2012:

"$500,000 deduction cap on compensation paid to insurance company employees and officers"

... And what's up with this?

...

... And it starts to get ugly...

2013:

"Individuals without gov't‐approved coverage are subject to a tax of the greater of $695 or 2.5% of income."

"Employers who fail to offer "affordable" coverage would pay a $3,000 penalty for every employee that receives a subsidy through the Exchange"

"Employers who do not offer insurance must pay a tax penalty of $2,000 for every fulltime employee"

"All non‐grandfathered and Exchange health plans required to meet federally mandated levels of coverage"

"Insurers cannot impose any coverage restrictions on pre‐existing conditions (guaranteed issue/renewability)"

"Insurers must offer coverage to anyone wanting a policy and every policy has to be renewed"

"Insurance plans must include government‐defined "essential benefits " and coverage levels"

"Impose tax on private health insurance plans"

... The 2nd and 3rd will kill jobs.

... The final five will kill private insurance (as is the goal).

...

[Nobunaga]

... Anybody?

[jbrettlip]

... Anybody?

well you are absolutely right. They want to break the insurance companies and put them out of business. THEY are on record for saying this. That is their goal. Plus the dems politically want to ruin the US economy, so more people are dependent on the govt, and they get more voters.

[PLAYER57832]

Nothing really new here.

Those who want universal coverage are reasonably happy. Those who see it as yet one more step to socialism, see further proof of their predictions.

Now.. on to reality.

The reality is that this bill, like anything passed in congress, is a compromise and therefore not fully what much of anybody wants. The big insurance companies have come out very publically in favor of this bill, so I tend to discount cries that this is just "about making the insurance companies fail". As to whether it will help or hinder, only time will really tell. My prediction is that like just about anything, it will be a mixture and that many of the effects will be things no one has predicted at all.

[Snorri1234]

"Individuals without gov't‐approved coverage are subject to a tax of the greater of $695 or 2.5% of income."

"Employers who fail to offer "affordable" coverage would pay a $3,000 penalty for every employee that receives a subsidy through the Exchange"

"Employers who do not offer insurance must pay a tax penalty of $2,000 for every fulltime employee"

"All non‐grandfathered and Exchange health plans required to meet federally mandated levels of coverage"

"Insurers cannot impose any coverage restrictions on pre‐existing conditions (guaranteed issue/renewability)"

"Insurers must offer coverage to anyone wanting a policy and every policy has to be renewed"

"Insurance plans must include government‐defined "essential benefits " and coverage levels"

"Impose tax on private health insurance plans"

... The 2nd and 3rd will kill jobs.

... The final five will kill private insurance (as is the goal).

...

Dude, if the final five will kill private insurance that basically means it should't exist in the first place.

Like, if insurance can't function without denying coverage or meeting any standards then the insurance has failed.

[jbrettlip]

Yes and car insurance companies should be required to insure all drivers regardless of how many DUI violations people may have. And at the same rate as safe drivers. In related news, that isn't how the world works.
The insurance industry was actually TOLD to get on board with this legislation. The alternative was an immediate death to the industry (govt run option at subsidized prices). So yes, they do back the bill, but hope it doesn't get to fruition.

[PLAYER57832]

Yes and car insurance companies should be required to insure all drivers regardless of how many DUI violations people may have. And at the same rate as safe drivers. In related news, that isn't how the world works.
The insurance industry was actually TOLD to get on board with this legislation. The alternative was an immediate death to the industry (govt run option at subsidized prices). So yes, they do back the bill, but hope it doesn't get to fruition.

newsflash, you do subsidize drunk and negligent drivers.

[jbrettlip]

I am well aware. We subsidize EVERYBODY already in the US. But Allstate doesn't HAVE to insure them. And if they do (or someone with an accident) they are allowed to charge higher rates to compensate for the risk. So forcing an insurance company to pay medical bills for me (currently 39 and healthy) and a 55 yr old obese diabetic at the same rate is stupid.

[Snorri1234]

Yes and car insurance companies should be required to insure all drivers regardless of how many DUI violations people may have. And at the same rate as safe drivers. In related news, that isn't how the world works.

Uh yes all drivers get insurance regardless of how many DUI violations they have. Because the law says they have to have insurance if they own a car.

[jbrettlip]

Yes and car insurance companies should be required to insure all drivers regardless of how many DUI violations people may have. And at the same rate as safe drivers. In related news, that isn't how the world works.

Uh yes all drivers get insurance regardless of how many DUI violations they have. Because the law says they have to have insurance if they own a car.

Right, they are supposed to have insurance. But insurance companies don't have to do business with them. So your logic is correct, but in the real world it doesn't happen nor should it. They don't GET insurance, they can try to purchase it if anyone is willing to sell it to them. Posts like your previous one show your inexperience in real world matters. Not a personal attack, just an observation.

[PLAYER57832]

Yes and car insurance companies should be required to insure all drivers regardless of how many DUI violations people may have. And at the same rate as safe drivers. In related news, that isn't how the world works.

Uh yes all drivers get insurance regardless of how many DUI violations they have. Because the law says they have to have insurance if they own a car.

Right, they are supposed to have insurance. But insurance companies don't have to do business with them. So your logic is correct, but in the real world it doesn't happen nor should it. They don't GET insurance, they can try to purchase it if anyone is willing to sell it to them. Posts like your previous one show your inexperience in real world matters. Not a personal attack, just an observation.

I see, so you feel that someone who contracts cancer or diabetes deserves to get the same treatment as someone who willfully violates the law and endangers everyone on the road?

[Snorri1234]

Yes and car insurance companies should be required to insure all drivers regardless of how many DUI violations people may have. And at the same rate as safe drivers. In related news, that isn't how the world works.

Uh yes all drivers get insurance regardless of how many DUI violations they have. Because the law says they have to have insurance if they own a car.

Right, they are supposed to have insurance. But insurance companies don't have to do business with them. So your logic is correct, but in the real world it doesn't happen nor should it. They don't GET insurance, they can try to purchase it if anyone is willing to sell it to them. Posts like your previous one show your inexperience in real world matters. Not a personal attack, just an observation.

Why shouldn't it happen? The point of insurance is that when shit happens the bills get paid and that there was at least some money paid by the person who caused shit to happen/had shit happen to him. Of course, for car insurance this isn't terribly important because the damage usually is solely for the one person.

In the context of health insurance: it's better that someone gets insurance and pays at least a little because they will always costs money anyway. treatment can't be denied so when you rack up a huge bill you go bankrupt and default on it, causing the hospital or doctor to ask for more money from others.

[PLAYER57832]

Why shouldn't it happen?

DUI is an intentional and willful action that endangers many others.

Of course, for car insurance this isn't terribly important because the damage usually is solely for the one person.

Wrong, the driver in a DUI is often the only one to survive, for a lot of reasons.

Anyway, on this, I gotta agree with jefjef that you are sort of over your head, at least when it comes to car insurance. You in Holland just don't have the same kinds of issues with DUI as we do here. I won't say you lack "real world" experience, but you do lack the experience of a driver over "across the pond". (both here and in Canada).

[Snorri1234]

Right, they are supposed to have insurance. But insurance companies don't have to do business with them. So your logic is correct, but in the real world it doesn't happen nor should it. They don't GET insurance, they can try to purchase it if anyone is willing to sell it to them. Posts like your previous one show your inexperience in real world matters. Not a personal attack, just an observation.

Why shouldn't it happen?

DUI is an intentional and willful action that endangers many others.

Of course, for car insurance this isn't terribly important because the damage usually is solely for the one person.

Wrong, the driver in a DUI is often the only one to survive, for a lot of reasons.

Anyway, on this, I gotta agree with jefjef that you are sort of over your head, at least when it comes to car insurance. You in Holland just don't have the same kinds of issues with DUI as we do here. I won't say you lack "real world" experience, but you do lack the experience of a driver over "across the pond". (both here and in Canada).

I'm not questioning that DUI isn't a problem. I'm saying that this doesn't mean these people shouldn't be able to get insurance. Why should someone who had a bunch of DUI's in his twenties be denied insurance when he buys his own car when he's 40?

Hell, I don't know how it is over there but here the insurancecompany simply doesn't pay out when you cause damage while driving drunk.


Also, I meant that it isn't terribly important to get everyone car insurance because most of the time accidents are minor and mostly damage to your own property. Thus the bills aren't for the other people to cover. (unlike healthcare) Driving around without insurance isn't a really big concern.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not questioning that DUI isn't a problem. I'm saying that this doesn't mean these people shouldn't be able to get insurance. Why should someone who had a bunch of DUI's in his twenties be denied insurance when he buys his own car when he's 40?

Because he's almost certainly still an alchoholic. In truth, if he really and truly has not committed an offense for 20 years, it likely won't be held against him. However, a big issue here is that you really and truly do not see DUI the same way most people here in the US do. (and I am basing this largely on posts you have made in other threads on this topic specifically) I am just pointing out that this distorts it.

Hell, I don't know how it is over there but here the insurancecompany simply doesn't pay out when you cause damage while driving drunk.

Here, that is not the case. For one thing, the worst damage is often to the other vehicle.

Also, I meant that it isn't terribly important to get everyone car insurance because most of the time accidents are minor and mostly damage to your own property. Thus the bills aren't for the other people to cover. (unlike healthcare) Driving around without insurance isn't a really big concern.

Well, here again, you are just plain wrong. Drunk driving kills more people in a year here, on average, than all 3 world wars combined did. That's not even counting the injuries.

Like I said, your view is quite different from the US reality.

[Snorri1234]

I'm not questioning that DUI isn't a problem. I'm saying that this doesn't mean these people shouldn't be able to get insurance. Why should someone who had a bunch of DUI's in his twenties be denied insurance when he buys his own car when he's 40?

Because he's almost certainly still an alchoholic. In truth, if he really and truly has not committed an offense for 20 years, it likely won't be held against him. However, a big issue here is that you really and truly do not see DUI the same way most people here in the US do. (and I am basing this largely on posts you have made in other threads on this topic specifically) I am just pointing out that this distorts it.

Getting a DUI doesn't mean you're an alcoholic. But still, what is someone supposed to do when he can't get insurance?

Hell, I don't know how it is over there but here the insurancecompany simply doesn't pay out when you cause damage while driving drunk.

Here, that is not the case. For one thing, the worst damage is often to the other vehicle.

Sorry, that was an oversimplification. The insurer pays all the damages to the other party but the drunk driver is not covered then himself.

The companies can also increase the premiums based on how many accidents you get, how old you are, how much you drive and all that. So someone who drives drunk too much is probably gonna end up paying most of the costs himself anyway.

Also, I meant that it isn't terribly important to get everyone car insurance because most of the time accidents are minor and mostly damage to your own property. Thus the bills aren't for the other people to cover. (unlike healthcare) Driving around without insurance isn't a really big concern.

Well, here again, you are just plain wrong. Drunk driving kills more people in a year here, on average, than all 3 world wars combined did. That's not even counting the injuries.

Like I said, your view is quite different from the US reality.

And not drunk driving kills even more people. Unless the US is truly completely fucked backwards the amount of small damage and accidents is more than the amount of drunk driving accidents.

Also, your statistic is bullshit because the 3(?) world wars, especially the first, had more people die on some days than in any given year in the US.
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

A little over one third of the deaths in 2000 had alcohol involved. In the more than 6 million accidents there were about 3 million injuries and 41,000 deaths. 16,000 of which had alcohol involved.

And the amount of drivers who had previous alcohol-convictions who were involved in a fatal car-accident is suprisingly low.

I mean, okay that's a lot. Yes. Especially compared to over here. But those who can't get insurance aren't going to f*ck all the problems up.