toldailytopic: US House of Representatives pass Obama-care.

Status
Not open for further replies.

drbrumley

Well-known member
Thanks, Comrade Barack
Posted by Lew Rockwell on March 22, 2010 12:37 PM
This morning on state radio, where they were all celebrating the expansion of state medicine as “historic,” they played one particular Obama comment several times: “We have answered the call of history!” (Hang up, Barack, hang up!) It made me remember Murray Rothbard talking about the Marxist fixation on History as a sort of god. History is inevitably moving towards Communism, and it is the duty of all progressive forces to help. To oppose History is the worst thing you can do. This is why the Progressives of the early 20th century and now use that term. Progress towards the total state, however achieved, is in sync with History.

NPR also said that one difference between the failed Clinton plan and now was that Ramn Emmanuel brought “industry groups into the tent, and kept them there.” True, of course. Chicago machine pol Rahm made sure that the pharmaceutical industry and others got the big bucks from the taxpayers, on top of the big bucks they already get. But why no details? How come NPR and the rest of the MSM aren’t telling us about who gets what? Because that would reveal Obamacare as a fascist big-government, big-industry combine against the taxpayers and the middle-class. Fascism is a variant of Marxism, of course
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Taxing Tanning
Posted by Laurence Vance on March 22, 2010 03:31 PM
One of the ways the new health care bill raises revenue is by a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning salons. How many other tax increases are hidden in this 2,400-page bill remain to be seen.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Hey Townie, you do know the profit margin for almost all insurance companies is like 2.5%? I mean seriously, your whining about insurance profits at 2.5%.

United Health
Revenue: $75,431,000,000
Profit: $4,654,000,000 (about 6%)

Other forms of insurance are far less lucrative. And it turns out that the stockholders are also getting taken:

California's Anthem Blue Cross justified its whopping 39 percent insurance premium hike by citing rising medical costs. But, it turns out, its parent company Wellpoint, Inc. has been spending tens of millions on large executive bonuses and fancy retreats.

According to congressional investigators, Wellpoint dished out over $1 million in bonuses to each of 39 executives, and spent at least $27 million on 103 lavish company trips, McClatchy reports.

The revelation throws something of a wrench into the claim by WellPoint's president and chief executive officer Angela Braly that the rake hikes were an effort to remain financially solvent, which she said before the House committee.

"Raising our premiums was not something we wanted to do," Braly said. "But we believe this was the most prudent choice given the rising cost of care and the problems caused by many younger and healthier policyholders dropping or reducing their coverage during tough economic times."

She claimed the company's decision was "actuarially sound and in full compliance with all requirements in the law."

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/ratehiking-blue-cross-spending-millions-bonuses-retreats/

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being siphoned off for executive playtime. Both the policyholders and shareholders are paying for this orgy of self-indulgence.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
United Health
Revenue: $75,431,000,000
Profit: $4,654,000,000 (about 6%)

Other forms of insurance are far less lucrative. And it turns out that the stockholders are also getting taken:

California's Anthem Blue Cross justified its whopping 39 percent insurance premium hike by citing rising medical costs. But, it turns out, its parent company Wellpoint, Inc. has been spending tens of millions on large executive bonuses and fancy retreats.

According to congressional investigators, Wellpoint dished out over $1 million in bonuses to each of 39 executives, and spent at least $27 million on 103 lavish company trips, McClatchy reports.

The revelation throws something of a wrench into the claim by WellPoint's president and chief executive officer Angela Braly that the rake hikes were an effort to remain financially solvent, which she said before the House committee.

"Raising our premiums was not something we wanted to do," Braly said. "But we believe this was the most prudent choice given the rising cost of care and the problems caused by many younger and healthier policyholders dropping or reducing their coverage during tough economic times."

She claimed the company's decision was "actuarially sound and in full compliance with all requirements in the law."

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/ratehiking-blue-cross-spending-millions-bonuses-retreats/

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being siphoned off for executive playtime. Both the policyholders and shareholders are paying for this orgy of self-indulgence.

Hey, I can play this game too.....Check mate...

Health Insurance Companies Rank #88 by Industry Profit Margin, Earning $100-200 on Avg. per Policy

I've posted several times before about the profitability of the "Health Care Plans" industry, see posts here and here, and reported previously that the health insurance industry ranked #86 by profit margin out of 215 industries, at 3.3%.

Updated data are now available for Q4 of 2009, and the Health Care Plan industry (includes Humana, Aetna, WellPoint, Magellan, Unitedhealth Group, etc.) slipped to #88 with a profit margin of 3.4%. Actually, that industry profit margin was boosted by WellPoint's 18% profit margin for Q4 2009, which was due largely to a one-time sale of its Pharmacy Benefit Management division. Without that sale, WellPoint's profit margin would have been only 3.9%, the industry average profit margin would have been closer to 3%, and the ranking for the industry would have fallen a few places down to #92.

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry's trade association representing 1,300 members, reported last October that annual health insurance premiums averaged $2,985 for individual coverage and $6,328 for family plans in 2009. Using the industry average profit margin of 3.4% means that insurance companies make about $100 per policy in profits for individual coverage, and a little more than $200 in profits for each family policy.

So even if we could strip away 100% of the health insurance industry's profits, it would only save patients between $100 and 200 per year in health insurance costs.

Source
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Here ya go for the list of most profitable industries

Private health insurance companies have come under attack lately for making profits, even "record profits," allegedly because of mergers, lack of competition, and monopoly power.

As the table above of Profit Margins by Industry shows (click to enlarge, data here for the most recent quarter), the industry "Health Care Plans" ranks #86 by profit margin (profits/revenue) at 3.3%. Measured by profit margin, there are 85 industries more profitable than Health Care Plans (includes Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, HealthSpring, etc.).

And isn't one reason for a lack of competition that competition for health insurance across state lines is prohibited, creating in effect 50 state health insurance "cartels?"
 

WizardofOz

New member
info emerging on plan Q&A article

info emerging on plan Q&A article

link

The health overhaul package passed by the House Sunday and sent to the Senate for final action is the most far-reaching health legislation since the creation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

While the underlying Senate bill will become law as soon as President Barack Obama signs it, additional changes will occur if the Senate passes the reconciliation-bill part of the package.

The following is a look at the impact of the entire package, which would extend insurance coverage to 32 million additional Americans by 2019, but also have an an effect on almost every citizen.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Here's where things stand and how you might be affected:

Q: I don't have health insurance. Would I have to get it, and what happens if I don't?​

A: Under the legislation, most Americans would have to have insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The penalty would start at $95, or up to 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, and rise to $695, or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085. Some people would be exempted from the insurance requirement, called an individual mandate, because of financial hardship or religious beliefs or if they are American Indians, for example.


Q: I want health insurance, but I can't afford it. What do I do?​

A: Depending on your income, you might be eligible for Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor and disabled, which would be expanded sharply beginning in 2014. Low-income adults, including those without children, would be eligible, as long as their incomes didn't exceed 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or $14,404 for individuals and $29,326 for a family of four, according to current poverty guidelines.


Q: What if I make too much for Medicaid but still can't afford coverage?​

A: You might be eligible for government subsidies to help you pay for private insurance that would be sold in the new state-based insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, slated to begin operation in 2014.

Premium subsidies would be available for individuals and families with incomes between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, or $14,404 to $43,320 for individuals and $29,326 to $88,200 for a family of four.

The subsidies would be on a sliding scale. For example, a family of four earning 150 percent of the poverty level, or $33,075 a year, would have to pay 4 percent of its income, or $1,323, on premiums. A family with income of 400 percent of the poverty level would have to pay 9.5 percent, or $8,379.

In addition, if your income is below 400 percent of the poverty level, your out-of-pocket health expenses would be limited.


Q: How would the legislation affect the kind of insurance I could buy? Would it make it easier for me to get coverage, even if I have health problems?​

A: If you have a medical condition, the bill would make it easier for you to get coverage; insurers would be barred from rejecting applicants based on health status once the exchanges are operating in 2014.

In the meantime, the bill would create a temporary high-risk insurance pool for people with medical problems who have been rejected by insurers and have been uninsured at least six months. That would occur this year.

And starting later this year, insurers could no longer exclude coverage for specific medical problems for children with pre-existing conditions, nor could they any longer set lifetime coverage limits for adults and kids.

In 2014, annual limits on coverage would be banned.

New policies sold on the exchanges would be required to cover a range of benefits, including hospitalizations, doctor visits, prescription drugs, maternity care and certain preventive tests.


Q: How would the legislation affect young adults?​

A: If you're an unmarried adult younger than 26, you could stay on your parent's insurance coverage as long as you are not offered health coverage at work.

In addition, people in their 20s would be given the option of buying a "catastrophic" plan that would have lower premiums. The coverage would largely only kick in after the individual had $6,000 in out of pocket expenses.

Q: I own a small business. Would I have to buy insurance for my workers? What help could I get?​

A: It depends on the size of your firm. Companies with fewer than 50 workers wouldn't face any penalties if they didn't offer insurance.

Companies could get tax credits to help buy insurance if they have 25 or fewer employees and a workforce with an average wage of up to $50,000. Tax credits of up to 35 percent of the cost of premiums would be available this year and would reach 50 percent in 2014. The full credits are for the smallest firms with low-wage workers; the subsidies shrink as companies' workforces and average wages rise.

Firms with more than 50 employees that do not offer coverage would have to pay a fee of up to $2,000 per full- time employee if any of their workers got government-subsidized insurance coverage in the exchanges. The first 30 workers would be excluded from the assessment.


Q: I'm over 65. How would the legislation affect seniors?​

A: The Medicare prescription-drug benefit would be improved substantially. This year, seniors who enter the Part D coverage gap, known as the "doughnut hole," would get $250 to help pay for their medications.

Beyond that, drug company-discounts on brand-name drugs and federal subsidies and discounts for all drugs would gradually reduce the gap, eliminating it by 2020. That means that seniors, who now pay 100 percent of their drug costs once they hit the doughnut hole, would pay 25 percent.

And, as under current law, once seniors spend a certain amount on medications, they would get "catastrophic" coverage and pay only 5 percent of the cost of their medications.

Meanwhile, government payments to Medicare Advantage, the private-plan part of Medicare, would be cut sharply starting in 2011. If you're one of the 10 million enrollees, you could lose extra benefits that many of the plans offer, such as free eyeglasses, hearing aids and gym memberships. To cushion the blow to beneficiaries, the cuts to health plans in high-cost areas of the country such as New York City and South Florida – where seniors have enjoyed the richest benefits -- would be phased in over as many as seven years.

Beginning this year, the bill would make all Medicare preventive services, such as screenings for colon, prostate and breast cancer, free to beneficiaries.


Q: How much is all this going to cost? Will it increase my taxes?​

A: The bill is estimated to cost $940 billion over a decade. But because of higher taxes and fees and billions of dollars in Medicare payment cuts to providers, the bill would narrow the federal budget deficit by $138 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

If you have a high income, you face higher taxes. Starting in 2013, individuals would pay a higher Medicare payroll tax of 2.35 percent on earnings of more than $200,000 a year and couples earning more than $250,000, up from the current 1.45 percent. In addition, you'd face an additional 3.8 percent tax on unearned income such as dividends and interest over the threshold.

Starting in 2018, the bill would also impose a 40 percent excise tax on the portion of most employer-sponsored health coverage (excluding dental and vision) that exceeds $10,200 a year for individuals and $27,500 for families.

The bill also would raise the threshold for deducting unreimbursed medical expenses from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income to 10 percent.

The bill also would limit the amount of money you can put in a flexible spending account to pay medical expenses to $2,500 starting in 2013. Those using an indoor tanning salon will pay a 10 percent tax starting this year.


Q: What will happen to my premiums?​

A: That's hard to predict and the subject of much debate. People who are sick might face lower premiums than otherwise because insurers wouldn't be permitted to charge sick people more; healthier people might pay more. Older people could still be charged more than younger people, but the gap couldn't be as large.

The bigger question is what happens to rising medical costs, which drive up premiums. Even proponents acknowledge that efforts in the legislation to control health costs, such as a new board to oversee Medicare spending, wouldn't have much of an effect for several years.

In November, a CBO report on how the legislation – which at that point had a tougher Cadillac tax – would affect premiums said big employers would see premiums stay flat or drop 3 percent compared to today's rates. It also noted that employees with small-group coverage might see their premiums stay the same. And Americans who received subsidies would see their premiums decline by up to 11 percent, according to the CBO.

link

Please fact check
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Some people would be exempted from the insurance requirement, called an individual mandate, because of financial hardship or religious beliefs or if they are American Indians, for example.

:think: Loophole.

Let's start a religion that has beliefs that go against having insurance. :idea:
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Insurance is a wager and insurance companies are bookies.
Me: "I bet you I'm gonna get sick or injured"
Insurance company: "I bet you won't"

Now, car insurance companies tell you what their limits are up front like "$400,000 per occurance" so if I get in an accident even if they drop me the next day they're on the hook for that accident.
The health insurance companies play dirty pool, you can pay your end but when they lose they drop you, and now you have a condition you can't roll into the next wager IF you can get someone to wager you.

It's like an accident that plays out over the rest of your life, but they only want to pay for the towtruck and then wash their hands.

So, something needed to happen, I don't know that what happened is the best and who knows how this will come out in the wash, but we already had medicare and medicaid and if we had insurance it payed $100 dollars for an asprin when we we're in the hospital to make up for everyone that didn't pay.

:idunno:
 

daxx00

New member
Other than that, there are taxes.

taxes,taxes! lovely taxes!

Actually, I do know one guy that managed to work his way out of homelessness. He finally caught a break working for a contractor, I think. He currently attends college with me.

Work isn't easy to find. And where there is work, it's long, difficult and pays little. There are agencies that allow people a small wage with long hours.

1) work isn't easy to find, but that doesn't mean it can't be found.



Minimum wage jobs barely cover that. There's a "30 Days" episode in which Morgan Spurlock and his fiance live on minimum wage and just barely make ends meet. You can watch the episode online. I'll have to find it if you want a link

barely making ends meet is better than never making them meet at all.
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
I think I'm new to the idea of medical insurance. Maybe someone can help me.

If a married person has insurance does the government now want to know if it covers their spouse and family?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Insurance is a wager and insurance companies are bookies.
Me: "I bet you I'm gonna get sick or injured"
Insurance company: "I bet you won't"

Now, car insurance companies tell you what their limits are up front like "$400,000 per occurance" so if I get in an accident even if they drop me the next day they're on the hook for that accident.
The health insurance companies play dirty pool, you can pay your end but when they lose they drop you, and now you have a condition you can't roll into the next wager IF you can get someone to wager you.

It's like an accident that plays out over the rest of your life, but they only want to pay for the towtruck and then wash their hands.

So, something needed to happen, I don't know that what happened is the best and who knows how this will come out in the wash, but we already had medicare and medicaid and if we had insurance it payed $100 dollars for an asprin when we we're in the hospital to make up for everyone that didn't pay.

:idunno:

Why Health Insurance
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
What effect do you think this bill will have on the people providing the actual care? Doctors, nurses, hospitals. If there are going to be a lot more insured people getting care, will the health care industry be able to handle it? And what will this increased demand do to prices?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top