First and foremost, I'd like to send out a congratulations to one of our contributors, my Secretary of State, "AM Donkey" on finding out him and his wife are going to have a baby girl. Secondly, thanks to the people at The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation for providing a side by side analysis of every Health Care reform legislation. And finally, thank you to Opencongress.org for using this website as a means of getting information about the Health Care reform legislation out there. If your new to Political Liability, and like what you read, feel free to view more of our post and tell us what you think. Ok, now down to business.
Part 3
A-Expansion of public programs: President Obama signed the reauthorization for CHIP which provides 11 million children with coverage. However, we will focus not only on the expansion of CHIP, but the other government run programs like Medicaid and Medicare and how each proposal plans to reach more Americans and to what effect this will have on those covered.
-Senate Finance Committee: Their proposal breaks the government run programs down like so, starting with Medicaid: They would expand medicaid to individuals within 115% the Federal Poverty Level, with the possibility of increasing it for eligible parents, pregnant women and children. Medicaid coverage could use its current structure or enroll children, pregnant women, parents and childless adults into the Health Insurance Exchange. Another option is to enroll everyone except childless adults into Medicaid. Childless adults would then be given a tax credit to purchase coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange or to buy into Medicaid.
CHIP: After Sept. 20, 2013, CHIP would be expand eligibility to within 275% of the Federal Poverty Level. Once the Health Insurance Exchange become operational, all those in CHIP would be covered under the exchange, while the states would be required to provide services such as Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment services and others not provided by plans within the exchange.
Medicare: Until the Health Insurance Exchange is operational, individuals between 55 and 64 years old who are without coverage would be allowed to buy into Medicare at full cost. Their plan would phase out or reduce the two year waiting period for individuals with disabilities who are Medicare eligible.
Public Health Insurance Option: Their plan has two options for public health insurance. Option A) would create a new public plan that would be offered through the Health Insurance Exchange that would be subject to the same ratings as private plans. This public plan could be ran either by the Federal government, multiple third parties or the states. Option B) is to not create a public plan.
-Senate HELP Committee: Their plan would expand Medicaid to children, pregnant women, parents, and adults without dependents whose incomes are within 150% of the Federal Poverty Level. These individuals would be covered through state Medicaid, and would not be eligible for credits to purchase health care within the American Health Benefit Gateways.
CHIP: Their plan would give those eligible the option to stay in CHIP or enroll in health care through the Gateways.
House Tri-Committee: Their plan would expand Medicaid to children, pregnant women, parents, and adults without dependents with incomes within 133% of the Federal Poverty Line. Those who are newly eligible for Medicaid have the option to enroll through the Health Insurance Exchange if they had qualified health care for six months before becoming eligible for Medicaid. The proposal would also provide coverage for all newborns lacking acceptable coverage as well as provide health care for low-income HIV infected individuals and family planning services for certain low-income women.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce amended their proposed increase of Medicaid payment for primary care of 100% the Medicaid rates to requiring states to submit a plan amendment detailing the payment rates under each states Medicaid program. The committee also amended the proposed expansion and provider payments that were going to be fully funded through Federal funds to be fully Federally funded until 2014, and then 90% Federally funded starting 2015.
That same committee amended the proposed requirement of enrollees to obtain health care through the Health Insurance Exchange if the Health Choices Commissioner determines the exchange has that capacity and the procedures are in place to integrate in a timely fashion without a lapse in coverage to state that those covered under CHIP could not join the exchange until the Secretary determines that they can be integrated into an exchange plan comparable to the average CHIP plan in 2011 and be done so in a timely fashion without lapse in coverage.
-Senators Tom Coburn and Richard Burr and Representatives Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes: Their plan would restructure Medicaid to provide care for low-income individuals with disabilities, foster children, low-income women with cervical or breast cancer, and certain TB-infected individuals. Their proposal would provide low income families with tax credits and financial support for private health care. It would replace long term care that falls under Medicaid with block grants for states to provide long term care for eligible elderly and disabled individuals. Their plan would also allow private facilities to compete with VAs to provide care for veterans, as well as allow eligible American Indians access to medical care options outside the Indian Health Service facilities.
-Representative John Conyers: His plan would create the US National Health Care program that would provide a comprehensive amount of benefits including long term care to all US residents. His proposal would eliminate Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP. It would allow VAs to run independently for 10 years before they get integrated into the program, while Indian Health Services ran independently for 5 years before being integrated.
-Representative John Dingell: His proposal would create a new public plan that would cover medical, dental, pediatric, home nursing, hospital and auxiliary services. His plan would also continue Medicare, but those enrolled may be transferred to the new program at a future time as well as allow those covered by Medicare access to services otherwise not covered. States would be required to provide equivalent services to ineligible individuals that would be funded by current Federal Medicaid funds and other Federal funds under the Social Security Act.
-Representative Tom Price: His plan would require states to cover a minimum of 90% of families within 200% of the Federal Poverty Level who are eligible before expanding CHIP to between 200% and 300% the Federal Poverty Level. States would also be required to provide premium assistance for Medicaid and CHIP enrollees that also have access to employer sponsored health care. States would also be required to offer vouchers to individuals eligible for Medicaid and CHIP for alternative private insurance.
-Senator Bernie Sanders: His plan would create a state based American Health Security Program that would provide comprehensive coverage to all US residents. Programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP would be eliminated. VAs and the Indian Health Service programs would run independently of his plan.
-Representative Stark: His proposal would create a new default plan for all Americans, modeled after Medicare. Under his AmeriCare plan, enrollees would pay a deductible of $350 per individual, $500 per family and 20% of coinsurance until the $2,500 per individual, $4,000 per family out of pocket expense was met. Those covered under AmeriCare are prohibited from coverage under state Medicaid or CHIP.
-Senators Ron Wyden and Bob Bennett: Their proposal would create comprehensive programs that provide supplemental coverage for low income individuals as well as a modified Medicaid for long term services. It would eliminate Medicaid and CHIP as comprehensive coverage programs.
-Former Majority Leaders: Senators Howard Barker, Tom Daschle and Bob Dole: Their plan would expand Medicaid to all individuals within 100% the Federal Poverty Level. At the start, all eligible individuals will obtain or keep state Medicaid. After five years, the Health and Human Services Secretary would be authorized to permit those eligible individuals to enroll in the Health Insurance Exchange granted it does not result in cost sharing or coverage loss. States would be allowed to create a plan option as an alternative in the exchange and is subject to certain regulations. If, after five years, Health and Human Services determines that goals are not met, a proposal for a state or Federal plan would be considered by Congress under an expedited procedures.
B-Premium subsidies for individuals: President Obama wants a plan that would protect families from bankruptcy or debt due to health care cost. We will be focusing on how each proposal plans to prevent debt and bankruptcy as it pertains to health care cost, as well as affordable plans for individuals who lose their jobs and employer based health care.
-Senate Finance: Their plan would provide refundable tax credits to individuals and families within 100% to 400% the Federal Poverty Level for purchase of insurance through Health Insurance Exchange. This tax credit would be based on either a set percentage of income or a percentage of the premium with cost sharing limits.
-Senate HELP: Their proposal would provide a sliding scale of premium credit for individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level to purchase insurance through the Gateway. This credit would be based on the average cost of the three lowest, qualifying health plans in the area but will not exceed 12.5% of the income of individuals within 400% the Federal Poverty Level, or 1% of the income of individuals within 100% the Federal Poverty Level with limits on cost sharing. Limits would be placed on availability of premium credits for individuals not eligible for employer sponsored health care, but meet eligibility for Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE or Federal Employee Health Benefits. Their plan would also allow those individuals who have employer sponsored health care a premium credit if the cost is 12.5% or more of their individual income.
-House Tri-Committee: Their plan would provide premium credits to those eligible individuals and families within 400% the Federal Poverty Level to purchase insurance through the Health Insurance Exchange. This credit would be based on the average cost of the three lowest basic plans in the area and are set on a sliding scale based on the following income tiers that have been amended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce: 133% to 150% of the Federal Poverty Level would receive credit of 1.5% to 3% of income, same as original; 150% to 200% Federal Poverty Level would receive 3% to 5.5%, up from 5% originally; 200% to 250% Federal Poverty Level would receive 5.5% to 8%, up from 5% to 7% originally; 250% to 300% Federal Poverty Level would receive 8% to 10%, up from 7% to 9% originally; 300% to 350% Federal Poverty Level would receive 10% to 11%, up from 9% to 10% originally; and 350% to 400% Federal Poverty Level would receive 11% to 12%, up from 10% to 11% originally.
Their plan would also provide affordable cost sharing credits to individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. Their plan would also limit the availability premium and cost sharing credits to US citizens and legal residents who are not enrolled into or grandfathered into any coverage with some exceptions. The Committee on Energy and Commerce amended the eligibility requirement for premium and cost sharing credits for individuals with the employer sponsored coverage option from exceeding 11% to exceeding 12% their annual income.
-Senators and Representative: Their plan would provide a credit of $2,290 for individuals, $5,710 for families to be used to purchase health care. Those covered by Medicare, military, and disabled individuals under Medicaid are not eligible for the credit. Any money left over from purchase of health care would be deposited into a medical savings account. Their plan would provide a supplemental debit card for families within 200% the Federal Poverty Level to be used to pay private insurance cost. The amount would vary from $5,000 for families within 100% the Federal Poverty Level to $2,000 for families within 180 to 200% the Federal Poverty Level, with an additional $1,000 for pregnancy and $500 for infants under 1 years old.
-Rep. Conyers: Under his plan, individuals are not required to pay premiums, copays or coinsurance fees.
-Rep. Dingell: Under his plan, individuals are not required to pay premiums.
-Rep. Price: His proposal would provide refundable tax credits of $2,000 for individuals, $5,000 for a family of four within 200% of the Federal Poverty Level to purchase health care in individual markets. This credit would be available to US citizens and permanent legal residents. His plan would allow individuals eligible for other programs to receive tax credit.
-Sen. Sanders: Under his plan, individuals are not required to pay premiums, copays or coinsurance fees.
-Rep. Starks: Under his plan, individuals within 200% of the Federal Poverty Level would not be required to pay premiums, deductibles or coinsurance. Individuals with family incomes within 200% to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level would be provided with premium subsidies and reduced deductibles. The plan would limit out of pocket expenses for deductibles and coinsurance to 5%of their income for those between 200% and 300% the Federal Poverty Level, and 7.5% for those between 300% and 500% Federal Poverty Level. There would be no deductibles or coinsurance for pregnancy related services or for children up to 24 years old.
-Sens. Wyden and Bennett: Their plan would allow individuals and families within 100% of the Federal Poverty Level to not pay premiums and provide subsidies for those between 100% and 400%. There would be a standard tax deduction for individuals and families above 100% the Federal Poverty Level with a phase out at higher income levels.
-Former Majority Leaders: Their plan would provide a sliding scale for families and individuals within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level to purchase insurance through the Health Insurance Exchange. Those families within 100% the Federal Poverty Level would be enrolled in Medicaid and not have to pay premiums. The rest would not exceed the following scale: 100% to 150% the Federal Poverty Level would pay 2% of income; 150% to 250% Federal Poverty Level would pay 5%; 250% to 350% Federal Poverty Level would pay 10%; 350% to 400% would pay 12.5%; those above 400% would not have to pay more than 15% their income.
C-Premium subsidies to Employers: President Obama has not outlined what he would like to see in legislation, so we will focus on how the government plans will help reduce the cost to employers.
-Senate Finance: Their proposal would provide certain small businesses tax credits for purchasing employee insurance. The full tax credit would be equal to 50% of the average total premium cost paid by employers with 10 or less employees, and those employees do not average more than $20,000 in annual wages. The tax credit would be phased out based on business size and employee income.
-House Tri-Committee: Their proposal would provide small businesses with 25 or fewer employees whose averages wages does not exceed $40,000 a health care credit. The full credit would be equal to 50% of the premium cost paid by employers with 10 or fewer employees whose average income does not exceed $20,000. The credit would phase out based on business size and average salary and is not permitted for employees earning more than $80,000.
This proposal would create a temporary reinsurance program for employers who provide coverage for retirees between 55 and 64 years old. This program would reimburse employers 80% of claims between $15,000 and $90,000. $10 billion would be appropriated over 10 years for this program.
-Senators and Representative: Their current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Conyers: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Dingell: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Price: His proposal would provide small businesses with 50 or less employees a temporary tax credit to adopt auto-enrollment and contribute coverage for employees who purchase private health care on the individual market.
-Sen. Sanders: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Starks: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Sens. Wyden and Bennett: Their current proposal does not address this issue.
-Former Majority Leaders: Their proposal would provide small businesses with 25 or less employees who are low-wage, a tax credit to help offer coverage.
***Coming Soon, Part 4: Tax changes related to health insurance***
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
A Breakdown of Health Care Reform Part 2
Again, I'd like to thank the fine people at The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation for providing a website that shows a side by side comparison of the Health Care reform proposals. Here's a breakdown of what the President wants, how different members of Congress are trying to achieve that, and how it's going to affect you.
Part 2
A- Individual Mandate: The plan must put the country on a clear path to cover all Americans. In this section we focus on how each individual proposal plans to reach every American and how it will be enforced.
-Senate Finance Committee: Their plan requires all Americans to have health care that meets minimum coverage standards. The proposal plans to enforce this through an excise tax that would be equal to the lowest premium option available through the Health Insurance Exchange in each individuals area. Hardship exemptions include individuals where the lowest option exceeds 10% of their income and individuals within 100% the Federal Poverty Level.
-Senate HELP: Their plan would require individuals to have qualified health care. The proposal plans to enforce this through a minimum tax penalty that will not exceed $750 per year. Exemptions from this include residents in states where states have not established an American Health Benefit Gateway, members of Indian tribes, and those without coverage for fewer than 90 days.
-House Tri-Committee: This plan would require all individuals to have "acceptable health coverage". The proposal plans to enforce this through a penalty of 2.5% of modified adjusted gross income up to the cost of the average premium for individual or family coverage under the Health Insurance Exchange. Exceptions include dependants, religious objections, and financial hardships.
-Sens. Tom Coburn and Richard Burr, Reps. Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes: Their plan has no requirement for individuals to have coverage. It allows to states to establish procedures to automatically enroll individuals into a low cost, high deductible health care through the Health Insurance Exchange with incentives to maintain coverage.
-Rep. John Conyers: All individuals residing in the US are covered under his proposal.
-Rep. John Dingell: Under his proposal, individuals meeting certain requirements are eligible.
-Rep. Tom Price: Under his proposal, there are no requirements for individuals to have coverage. The plan does allow employers to automatically enroll individuals into the lost cost health care as long as they can opt out of their coverage.
-Sen. Bernie Sanders: Under his proposal all individuals residing in the US are covered.
-Rep. Pete Stark: Under his proposal all US residents are eligible for coverage. However, certain individuals can opt out if they are covered under group coverage.
-Sens. Ron Wyden and Bob Bennett: Their plan requires all individuals over 19, and their dependants, to have insurance. Their plan will be enforced through financial penalties based on the number of uncovered months and weighted average of Healthy American Private Insurance premiums.
-Former Majority Leaders: Sens. Howard Baker, Tom Daschle and Bob Dole: Their plan requires all Americans and legal residents to have health care that meets minimum coverage standards. Their proposal has several enforcement proposals including: default enrollment in basic coverage through an employer or Health Insurance Exchange when starting a job; tax penalties including loss of federal deductions or exemptions; or a "fair share" fee added to income tax. Exceptions would include religious objections and financial hardships.
B- Employer Requirement: President Obama has not addressed specific principles for this issue. However, we will focus on what will be required by employers and how they will be effected by health care reform.
-Senate Finance: Their proposal has two options. Option A would require employers that have more than $500,000 inn total payroll to offer coverage to employees and contribute a minimum of 50% of the premium or pay an assessment. There are three options to the employer assessment; option 1 would set a fee per enrollee per month based on total annual payroll; option 2 would set a tiered penalty calculated as a percentage of payroll; and option 3 would set a larger penalty only on firms with an annual payroll of $1.5 million.
Option B of the Senate Finance proposal would eliminate the "pay to play" assessment fee.
-Senate HELP: Their proposal would require employers to offer health care to employees and contribute a minimum of 60% of the premium or pay $750 per uninsured fill-time employee and $375 per uninsured part-time employee who is not offered coverage. Employers who are subjected to this assessment will receive an exemption for their first 25 employees. However, those exempt employers who have 25 or less employees are required to provide coverage.
-House Tri-Committee: Their proposal would require employers to offer health care to employees and contribute a minimum of 72.5% of the premium for individuals or 65% of the premiums for families. These minimum contributions would correlate to the lowest cost plan that meets benefit requirements, or employers would have to pay 8% of payroll into Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund. The Committee on Education and Labor amended for hardships to include employers that would be negatively affected by job losses as results of the proposal requirements.
The Committee of Energy and Commerce amended the reduction on the "pay or play" assessment for small employers with an annual payroll of less than $400,000 to less than $750,000. The assessment breaks down as follows: Those whose payroll is less than $500,000 is exempt; from $500,000 to $585,000 would pay 2% of payroll; from $585,000 to $670,000 would pay 4% of payroll; from %670,000 to $750,000 would pay 6% of payroll.
Their proposal would also require employers that offer coverage to automatically enroll individuals who are not covered into the employer's lowest cost premium plan.
-Senators and Representatives: Their current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Conyers: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Dingell: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Price: Under his current proposal, employers can offer employees a defined amount for the purchase of health care in the individual market. It does require employers to disclose the total amount they plan to spend on employees health care.
-Sen. Sanders: His current proposal would prohibit employers from offering health care that duplicates that offered by the State.
-Rep. Starks: His proposal would require employers to contribute a minimum of 80% of AmeriCare premiums or a minimum of 80% of qualified employee group plan premium. His plan would allow employers with 100 employees or less three additional years to comply with provisions. There maybe a surcharge on employers to prevent adverse selection.
-Sens. Wyden and Bennett: Their proposal would require employers to contribute an amount equal to the average premium of their workforce times the number of workers. Premiums would vary for large and small businesses from 2% to 25%. For the first two years of their proposal, employers who had previously provided coverage would be permitted to raise wages by the amount of health care premiums instead of the above mentioned percentages. Employers that continue to sponsor plans will be required to provide Healthy American Private Insurance information to employees. It would also require employers to deduct individual and family premiums from employee payroll.
-Former Majority Leaders: Their proposal would require all employers to cover their employees or pay a fee based on payroll percentage ranging from 1% for employers with payrolls between $1 and $2 million and 3% for payrolls above $3 million. Small businesses with payrolls less than $1 million are exempt from fee.
***Coming Soon, Part 3: Expansion of Public Programs and Subsidies for Employers and Employees***
Part 2
A- Individual Mandate: The plan must put the country on a clear path to cover all Americans. In this section we focus on how each individual proposal plans to reach every American and how it will be enforced.
-Senate Finance Committee: Their plan requires all Americans to have health care that meets minimum coverage standards. The proposal plans to enforce this through an excise tax that would be equal to the lowest premium option available through the Health Insurance Exchange in each individuals area. Hardship exemptions include individuals where the lowest option exceeds 10% of their income and individuals within 100% the Federal Poverty Level.
-Senate HELP: Their plan would require individuals to have qualified health care. The proposal plans to enforce this through a minimum tax penalty that will not exceed $750 per year. Exemptions from this include residents in states where states have not established an American Health Benefit Gateway, members of Indian tribes, and those without coverage for fewer than 90 days.
-House Tri-Committee: This plan would require all individuals to have "acceptable health coverage". The proposal plans to enforce this through a penalty of 2.5% of modified adjusted gross income up to the cost of the average premium for individual or family coverage under the Health Insurance Exchange. Exceptions include dependants, religious objections, and financial hardships.
-Sens. Tom Coburn and Richard Burr, Reps. Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes: Their plan has no requirement for individuals to have coverage. It allows to states to establish procedures to automatically enroll individuals into a low cost, high deductible health care through the Health Insurance Exchange with incentives to maintain coverage.
-Rep. John Conyers: All individuals residing in the US are covered under his proposal.
-Rep. John Dingell: Under his proposal, individuals meeting certain requirements are eligible.
-Rep. Tom Price: Under his proposal, there are no requirements for individuals to have coverage. The plan does allow employers to automatically enroll individuals into the lost cost health care as long as they can opt out of their coverage.
-Sen. Bernie Sanders: Under his proposal all individuals residing in the US are covered.
-Rep. Pete Stark: Under his proposal all US residents are eligible for coverage. However, certain individuals can opt out if they are covered under group coverage.
-Sens. Ron Wyden and Bob Bennett: Their plan requires all individuals over 19, and their dependants, to have insurance. Their plan will be enforced through financial penalties based on the number of uncovered months and weighted average of Healthy American Private Insurance premiums.
-Former Majority Leaders: Sens. Howard Baker, Tom Daschle and Bob Dole: Their plan requires all Americans and legal residents to have health care that meets minimum coverage standards. Their proposal has several enforcement proposals including: default enrollment in basic coverage through an employer or Health Insurance Exchange when starting a job; tax penalties including loss of federal deductions or exemptions; or a "fair share" fee added to income tax. Exceptions would include religious objections and financial hardships.
B- Employer Requirement: President Obama has not addressed specific principles for this issue. However, we will focus on what will be required by employers and how they will be effected by health care reform.
-Senate Finance: Their proposal has two options. Option A would require employers that have more than $500,000 inn total payroll to offer coverage to employees and contribute a minimum of 50% of the premium or pay an assessment. There are three options to the employer assessment; option 1 would set a fee per enrollee per month based on total annual payroll; option 2 would set a tiered penalty calculated as a percentage of payroll; and option 3 would set a larger penalty only on firms with an annual payroll of $1.5 million.
Option B of the Senate Finance proposal would eliminate the "pay to play" assessment fee.
-Senate HELP: Their proposal would require employers to offer health care to employees and contribute a minimum of 60% of the premium or pay $750 per uninsured fill-time employee and $375 per uninsured part-time employee who is not offered coverage. Employers who are subjected to this assessment will receive an exemption for their first 25 employees. However, those exempt employers who have 25 or less employees are required to provide coverage.
-House Tri-Committee: Their proposal would require employers to offer health care to employees and contribute a minimum of 72.5% of the premium for individuals or 65% of the premiums for families. These minimum contributions would correlate to the lowest cost plan that meets benefit requirements, or employers would have to pay 8% of payroll into Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund. The Committee on Education and Labor amended for hardships to include employers that would be negatively affected by job losses as results of the proposal requirements.
The Committee of Energy and Commerce amended the reduction on the "pay or play" assessment for small employers with an annual payroll of less than $400,000 to less than $750,000. The assessment breaks down as follows: Those whose payroll is less than $500,000 is exempt; from $500,000 to $585,000 would pay 2% of payroll; from $585,000 to $670,000 would pay 4% of payroll; from %670,000 to $750,000 would pay 6% of payroll.
Their proposal would also require employers that offer coverage to automatically enroll individuals who are not covered into the employer's lowest cost premium plan.
-Senators and Representatives: Their current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Conyers: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Dingell: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Price: Under his current proposal, employers can offer employees a defined amount for the purchase of health care in the individual market. It does require employers to disclose the total amount they plan to spend on employees health care.
-Sen. Sanders: His current proposal would prohibit employers from offering health care that duplicates that offered by the State.
-Rep. Starks: His proposal would require employers to contribute a minimum of 80% of AmeriCare premiums or a minimum of 80% of qualified employee group plan premium. His plan would allow employers with 100 employees or less three additional years to comply with provisions. There maybe a surcharge on employers to prevent adverse selection.
-Sens. Wyden and Bennett: Their proposal would require employers to contribute an amount equal to the average premium of their workforce times the number of workers. Premiums would vary for large and small businesses from 2% to 25%. For the first two years of their proposal, employers who had previously provided coverage would be permitted to raise wages by the amount of health care premiums instead of the above mentioned percentages. Employers that continue to sponsor plans will be required to provide Healthy American Private Insurance information to employees. It would also require employers to deduct individual and family premiums from employee payroll.
-Former Majority Leaders: Their proposal would require all employers to cover their employees or pay a fee based on payroll percentage ranging from 1% for employers with payrolls between $1 and $2 million and 3% for payrolls above $3 million. Small businesses with payrolls less than $1 million are exempt from fee.
***Coming Soon, Part 3: Expansion of Public Programs and Subsidies for Employers and Employees***
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
A Breakdown of Health Care Reform Part 1
First, I'd like to thank the fine people at The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation for providing a website that shows a side by side comparison of the Health Care reform proposals. Here's a breakdown of what the President wants, how different members of Congress are trying to achieve that, and how it's going to affect you.
Part 1: Overall approach to expand access to coverage
A- Reduce long-term growth of Health Care cost to businesses and government: In this section we are simply focusing on how each individual reform plan would cut the cost to businesses and the government.
-Senate Finance Committee "Policy Options": Their current plan does not address this issue.
-Senate HELP Committee "Affordable Health Choices Act": Grant small business credits to offset the cost of employer provided insurance.
-House Tri-Committee "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200)": Grant cost-sharing credits to individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. Employers have an option to provide for their employees or put funds into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, with exceptions of small businesses who will receive a credit to offset the cost of employer provided insurance.
-Senators Tom Coburn (R- OK) and Richard Burr (R- NC), Representatives Paul Ryan (R- WI) and Devin Nunes (R- CA) "Patient's Choice Act of 2009 (S. 1099, H.R. 2520)": Their current plan does not address this issue.
-Representative John Conyers (D- MI) "U.S. National Health Care Act (H.R. 676)": Turn the health care system into a non-profit system that would be funded by leverage of additional taxes. The plan would provide a global budget for hospitals and other non-institutional providers.
-Representative John Dingell (D- MI) "National Health Insurance Act (H.R. 15)": Plan would be funded by value-added tax on certain transactions.
-Representative Tom Price (R- GA) of the Republican Study Committee "Empowering Patients First Act": Plan would deduct premium cost out of income taxes and provide a refundable tax credit.
-Senator Bernie Sanders (I- VT) "American Health Security Act of 2009 (S. 703)": Plan would provide a global budget for all hospitals and non-institutional providers. Employers and employees would share in a payroll tax and there would be leveraged health care income tax.
-Representative Pete Stark (D- CA) "AmeriCare Health Care Act of 2009 (H.R. 193)": Employers and individuals would contribute to the plan. It would also receive funding through general revenues.
-Senators Ron Wyden (D- OR) and Bob Bennett (R- UT) "Healthy American Act (S. 391)": Their current plan does not address this issue.
-Former Majority Leaders Senators Howard Baker (R- TN), Tom Daschle (D- SD), and Bob Dole (R- KS) "Crossing Our Lines: Working Together to Reform the U.S. Health System": Their plan would provide a credit for premiums as well as small businesses to offset the cost of employer provided health care.
B-Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of Health Care cost: In this section we are focusing on how each proposal plans to prevent families from falling into debt from rising health care bills.
-Senate Finance: Their plan would allow for subsidies for families and individuals within 100 % to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.
- Senate HELP: Their plan would allow for subsidies for families and individuals within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.
-House Tri-Committee: Their plan would provide credits for premiums and cost-sharing for families and individuals within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. The Health Insurance Exchange would also have a trust fund that would be funded as an alternative for employers.
-Senators and Representatives: Their plan would provide an employer tax credit of $2290 per individual or $5710 per family.
-Rep. Conyers: His plan requires no premium or cost-sharing by any individual.
-Rep. Dingell: His current plan does not address this issue.
-Rep. Price: His plan would provide refundable tax credits to families and individuals within 300% of the Federal Poverty Level. It would also require states to cover 90% of the children and families within 200% of the Federal Poverty Level with the possibility of expanding that number to 300% the Federal Poverty Level. It would also issue vouchers to children covered under Medicare or CHIPS for private care.
-Sen. Sanders: Under his current plan, individuals would not be required to pay premiums or cost-share.
-Rep. Stark: His plan would provide Federal premium subsidies to individuals within 300% of the Federal Poverty Level.
-Sens. Wyden and Bennett: Their plan would provide Federal subsidies for individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.
-Former Majority Leaders: Their plan would provide credits for individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.
C- Generate Choice of Doctors and Health Plan: In this section we are focusing on how each proposal would provide a choice of doctor and health plan for Americans.
-Senate Finance: They would create a Health Insurance Exchange for individuals and small businesses as well as provide a temporary buy-in to Medicare for the pre-Medicare population.
-Senate HELP: There would be a state based American Health Benefit Gateway for individuals and small businesses. The proposal would also require employers to provide coverage for employees.
-House Tri-Committee: They would create a Health Insurance Exchange for individuals and small businesses. The proposal would also require employers to provide coverage for employees.
-Senators and Representatives: They propose a state based Health Insurance Exchange with private plans meeting certain benefits and standards. Employers would be provided with a tax credit of $2290 per individual or $5710 per family as incentives over the loss of certain tax preferences. It would also provide private insurance for low-income Medicaid families.
-Rep. Conyers: His proposal is to create a public health insurance program.
-Rep. Dingall: He proposes to create a public health insurance program that would also require states to administer programs to provide equivalent care for "needy" ineligible individuals.
-Rep. Price: He would establish both an Association Health Plan and Individual Memebership Associations for individuals and employers. It would also require states to provide coverage for 90% of children within 200% of the Federal Poverty Level with the condition of changing the number to 300% the Federal Poverty Level, or offer vouchers from Medicaid and CHIPS to private insurance.
-Sen. Sanders: Would create a state based health insurance program.
-Rep. Stark: His proposal would create a public plan modeled after Medicare with an option out for those individuals who are in qualified groups or Medicare.
-Sens. Wyden and Bennett: Their proposal would require most Americans to buy private coverage called Healthy Americans Private Insurance that would meet certain standards. It would also allow for employer sponsored health care but without favorable tax treatments they currently receive.
-Former Majority Leaders: Their plan would create a state based Health Insurance Exchange for individuals and small businesses. It would also require employers to provide coverage.
D- Invest in prevention and wellness: There is currently no proposal that addresses this issue. However, and issue like this should have a focal point of starting early by preventing obesity in children through health classes and money toward physical education.
E- Improve Patient Safety and Quality Care: There is currently no proposal that addresses this issue. However, this topic is key to any type of reform of the health care system.
F- Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all: Similar to making sure Americans don't go bankrupt from heath care cost, we focus on affordable health coverage for all Americans.
-Senate Finance: Their plan would require all Americans to have health care, while providing subsidies for individuals and families within 100 to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. They would also expand Medicaid and CHIPS, as well as allow a temporary buy in to Medicare for the pre-Medicare population.
-Senate HELP: Would require all individuals to have health care. There would be a state based American Health Benefit Gateway with subsidies for individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. It would also expand Medicaid to individuals within 150% of the Federal Poverty Level.
-House Tri-Committee: They would require all individuals to have health care with a credit for premium and cost sharing going to individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. There would also be a Health Insurance Exchange trust fund funded as an employer option. The proposal would also call for an expansion of Medicaid to 133% the Federal Poverty Level.
-Senators and Representatives: This plan would provide a tax credit of $2290 for individuals and $5710 for families as incentives into the program. It would also provide Medicaid for low-income individuals with disabilities and would integrate low-income families into private health care.
-Rep. Conyers: His plan would create a public health insurance program in which individuals would not be required to pay premiums or cost share. The health care industry would become non-profit.
-Rep. Dingell: His plan would create a national health insurance for eligible individuals. It would require the states to administer programs for "needy" non-eligible individuals.
- Rep. Price: His proposal would allow people who buy coverage on the individual market to deduct their premium from their income tax. It would also provide refundable tax credit to individuals and families within 300% of the Federal Poverty Level. Under this plan, there would be a state based pool for high-risk, pre-existing conditioned individuals. It would also require the states to cover 90% of kids with families within 200% of the Federal Poverty Level with a conditional upgrade to 300% the Federal Poverty Level. It would also provide vouchers for children on Medicaid or CHIPS for private coverage.
-Sen. Sanders: State based public health care for all US residents. Individuals would not be required to pay premiums or cost-share.
-Rep. Starks: His proposal would create a new public plan as a default coverage for all Americans. It would allow individuals in qualified groups or Medicare to opt out. Federal premiums subsidies would be available to individuals within 300% the Federal Poverty Level.
-Sens. Wyden and Bennett: Their plan would require most Americans to purchase Healthy American Private Insurance with subsidies for individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. It would also allow employers to sponsor health care.
-Former Majority Leaders: Their plan would require all Americans to have health care. It would create state based health care with premium credits for individuals and families within 400% the Federal Poverty Level. The proposal would also require employers to provide coverage for employees as well as expand Medicaid to 100% the Federal Poverty Level.
G-Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job: There is currently no plan that addresses this issue. However, with many agreeing on a Health Insurance Exchange, this maybe covered in that discussion. Either way, this is suppose to be a staple in Obama's overhaul of health care.
H- End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions: In this area we will focus on what will be available for those individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.
-Senate Finance: Their current proposal does not address this issue.
- Senate HELP: Their current proposal does not address this issue.
-House Tri-Committee: Their current proposal does not address this issue.
-Senators and Representatives: Their proposal would maintain Medicare coverage for low-income individuals with disabilities.
-Rep. Conyers: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Dingell: His proposal calls for the states to administer equivalent care for "needy" individuals who do not meet the national health insurance eligibility.
-Rep. Price: His proposal would have the states implement high-risk pools or reinsurance programs to provide coverage for individuals with pre-existing health conditions.
-Sen. Sanders: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Starks: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Sens. Wyden and Bennett: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Former Majority Leaders: Their current proposal does not address this issue.
***Coming Soon: A Breakdown of Health Care Reform Part 2. We'll be going into individual mandates, employer requirements"***
Part 1: Overall approach to expand access to coverage
A- Reduce long-term growth of Health Care cost to businesses and government: In this section we are simply focusing on how each individual reform plan would cut the cost to businesses and the government.
-Senate Finance Committee "Policy Options": Their current plan does not address this issue.
-Senate HELP Committee "Affordable Health Choices Act": Grant small business credits to offset the cost of employer provided insurance.
-House Tri-Committee "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200)": Grant cost-sharing credits to individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. Employers have an option to provide for their employees or put funds into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, with exceptions of small businesses who will receive a credit to offset the cost of employer provided insurance.
-Senators Tom Coburn (R- OK) and Richard Burr (R- NC), Representatives Paul Ryan (R- WI) and Devin Nunes (R- CA) "Patient's Choice Act of 2009 (S. 1099, H.R. 2520)": Their current plan does not address this issue.
-Representative John Conyers (D- MI) "U.S. National Health Care Act (H.R. 676)": Turn the health care system into a non-profit system that would be funded by leverage of additional taxes. The plan would provide a global budget for hospitals and other non-institutional providers.
-Representative John Dingell (D- MI) "National Health Insurance Act (H.R. 15)": Plan would be funded by value-added tax on certain transactions.
-Representative Tom Price (R- GA) of the Republican Study Committee "Empowering Patients First Act": Plan would deduct premium cost out of income taxes and provide a refundable tax credit.
-Senator Bernie Sanders (I- VT) "American Health Security Act of 2009 (S. 703)": Plan would provide a global budget for all hospitals and non-institutional providers. Employers and employees would share in a payroll tax and there would be leveraged health care income tax.
-Representative Pete Stark (D- CA) "AmeriCare Health Care Act of 2009 (H.R. 193)": Employers and individuals would contribute to the plan. It would also receive funding through general revenues.
-Senators Ron Wyden (D- OR) and Bob Bennett (R- UT) "Healthy American Act (S. 391)": Their current plan does not address this issue.
-Former Majority Leaders Senators Howard Baker (R- TN), Tom Daschle (D- SD), and Bob Dole (R- KS) "Crossing Our Lines: Working Together to Reform the U.S. Health System": Their plan would provide a credit for premiums as well as small businesses to offset the cost of employer provided health care.
B-Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of Health Care cost: In this section we are focusing on how each proposal plans to prevent families from falling into debt from rising health care bills.
-Senate Finance: Their plan would allow for subsidies for families and individuals within 100 % to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.
- Senate HELP: Their plan would allow for subsidies for families and individuals within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.
-House Tri-Committee: Their plan would provide credits for premiums and cost-sharing for families and individuals within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. The Health Insurance Exchange would also have a trust fund that would be funded as an alternative for employers.
-Senators and Representatives: Their plan would provide an employer tax credit of $2290 per individual or $5710 per family.
-Rep. Conyers: His plan requires no premium or cost-sharing by any individual.
-Rep. Dingell: His current plan does not address this issue.
-Rep. Price: His plan would provide refundable tax credits to families and individuals within 300% of the Federal Poverty Level. It would also require states to cover 90% of the children and families within 200% of the Federal Poverty Level with the possibility of expanding that number to 300% the Federal Poverty Level. It would also issue vouchers to children covered under Medicare or CHIPS for private care.
-Sen. Sanders: Under his current plan, individuals would not be required to pay premiums or cost-share.
-Rep. Stark: His plan would provide Federal premium subsidies to individuals within 300% of the Federal Poverty Level.
-Sens. Wyden and Bennett: Their plan would provide Federal subsidies for individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.
-Former Majority Leaders: Their plan would provide credits for individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.
C- Generate Choice of Doctors and Health Plan: In this section we are focusing on how each proposal would provide a choice of doctor and health plan for Americans.
-Senate Finance: They would create a Health Insurance Exchange for individuals and small businesses as well as provide a temporary buy-in to Medicare for the pre-Medicare population.
-Senate HELP: There would be a state based American Health Benefit Gateway for individuals and small businesses. The proposal would also require employers to provide coverage for employees.
-House Tri-Committee: They would create a Health Insurance Exchange for individuals and small businesses. The proposal would also require employers to provide coverage for employees.
-Senators and Representatives: They propose a state based Health Insurance Exchange with private plans meeting certain benefits and standards. Employers would be provided with a tax credit of $2290 per individual or $5710 per family as incentives over the loss of certain tax preferences. It would also provide private insurance for low-income Medicaid families.
-Rep. Conyers: His proposal is to create a public health insurance program.
-Rep. Dingall: He proposes to create a public health insurance program that would also require states to administer programs to provide equivalent care for "needy" ineligible individuals.
-Rep. Price: He would establish both an Association Health Plan and Individual Memebership Associations for individuals and employers. It would also require states to provide coverage for 90% of children within 200% of the Federal Poverty Level with the condition of changing the number to 300% the Federal Poverty Level, or offer vouchers from Medicaid and CHIPS to private insurance.
-Sen. Sanders: Would create a state based health insurance program.
-Rep. Stark: His proposal would create a public plan modeled after Medicare with an option out for those individuals who are in qualified groups or Medicare.
-Sens. Wyden and Bennett: Their proposal would require most Americans to buy private coverage called Healthy Americans Private Insurance that would meet certain standards. It would also allow for employer sponsored health care but without favorable tax treatments they currently receive.
-Former Majority Leaders: Their plan would create a state based Health Insurance Exchange for individuals and small businesses. It would also require employers to provide coverage.
D- Invest in prevention and wellness: There is currently no proposal that addresses this issue. However, and issue like this should have a focal point of starting early by preventing obesity in children through health classes and money toward physical education.
E- Improve Patient Safety and Quality Care: There is currently no proposal that addresses this issue. However, this topic is key to any type of reform of the health care system.
F- Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all: Similar to making sure Americans don't go bankrupt from heath care cost, we focus on affordable health coverage for all Americans.
-Senate Finance: Their plan would require all Americans to have health care, while providing subsidies for individuals and families within 100 to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. They would also expand Medicaid and CHIPS, as well as allow a temporary buy in to Medicare for the pre-Medicare population.
-Senate HELP: Would require all individuals to have health care. There would be a state based American Health Benefit Gateway with subsidies for individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. It would also expand Medicaid to individuals within 150% of the Federal Poverty Level.
-House Tri-Committee: They would require all individuals to have health care with a credit for premium and cost sharing going to individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. There would also be a Health Insurance Exchange trust fund funded as an employer option. The proposal would also call for an expansion of Medicaid to 133% the Federal Poverty Level.
-Senators and Representatives: This plan would provide a tax credit of $2290 for individuals and $5710 for families as incentives into the program. It would also provide Medicaid for low-income individuals with disabilities and would integrate low-income families into private health care.
-Rep. Conyers: His plan would create a public health insurance program in which individuals would not be required to pay premiums or cost share. The health care industry would become non-profit.
-Rep. Dingell: His plan would create a national health insurance for eligible individuals. It would require the states to administer programs for "needy" non-eligible individuals.
- Rep. Price: His proposal would allow people who buy coverage on the individual market to deduct their premium from their income tax. It would also provide refundable tax credit to individuals and families within 300% of the Federal Poverty Level. Under this plan, there would be a state based pool for high-risk, pre-existing conditioned individuals. It would also require the states to cover 90% of kids with families within 200% of the Federal Poverty Level with a conditional upgrade to 300% the Federal Poverty Level. It would also provide vouchers for children on Medicaid or CHIPS for private coverage.
-Sen. Sanders: State based public health care for all US residents. Individuals would not be required to pay premiums or cost-share.
-Rep. Starks: His proposal would create a new public plan as a default coverage for all Americans. It would allow individuals in qualified groups or Medicare to opt out. Federal premiums subsidies would be available to individuals within 300% the Federal Poverty Level.
-Sens. Wyden and Bennett: Their plan would require most Americans to purchase Healthy American Private Insurance with subsidies for individuals and families within 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. It would also allow employers to sponsor health care.
-Former Majority Leaders: Their plan would require all Americans to have health care. It would create state based health care with premium credits for individuals and families within 400% the Federal Poverty Level. The proposal would also require employers to provide coverage for employees as well as expand Medicaid to 100% the Federal Poverty Level.
G-Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job: There is currently no plan that addresses this issue. However, with many agreeing on a Health Insurance Exchange, this maybe covered in that discussion. Either way, this is suppose to be a staple in Obama's overhaul of health care.
H- End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions: In this area we will focus on what will be available for those individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.
-Senate Finance: Their current proposal does not address this issue.
- Senate HELP: Their current proposal does not address this issue.
-House Tri-Committee: Their current proposal does not address this issue.
-Senators and Representatives: Their proposal would maintain Medicare coverage for low-income individuals with disabilities.
-Rep. Conyers: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Dingell: His proposal calls for the states to administer equivalent care for "needy" individuals who do not meet the national health insurance eligibility.
-Rep. Price: His proposal would have the states implement high-risk pools or reinsurance programs to provide coverage for individuals with pre-existing health conditions.
-Sen. Sanders: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Rep. Starks: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Sens. Wyden and Bennett: His current proposal does not address this issue.
-Former Majority Leaders: Their current proposal does not address this issue.
***Coming Soon: A Breakdown of Health Care Reform Part 2. We'll be going into individual mandates, employer requirements"***
Health Care Pot pourri
As we work on dissecting ALL the health care reform bills that are out there, in order to give you a non biased, fact based answers to all your health care questions, here's some tidbits of opinions.
In Need of Public Option If President Obama wants to have affordable health care coverage for all, the nation needs a public option. Americans need to get their heads out of their back sides and realize that health care needs to be a universal right for EVERYONE. We need to stop focusing on our own individuality and look at what is good for the nation. Now, I understand that this is a stern 180 from my view of keeping the government out of our lives, but this needs to happen. Anything outside a public option is not Health Care reform, it's simply Health Care renegotiation, especially when you are going to force Americans into health care.
A universal health care, although viewed as socialistic, would not turn us into a socialist society. It would show that we as a nation get the fact that health care and health coverage is a universal human right and is not limited to the rich getting the best coverage while the poor are stuck going to overcrowded clinics seeing doctors who take glimpses while the rich have sit down conversations with their doctors. And that is the point. Don't I have the same right to the same quality health care as President Obama or Bill Gates? Or are we so egotistical that we believe our social class allows us the right to receive better or worse health care?
Bay Area's Got It Right As reported on CNN on Monday, the city of San Fransisco has introduced universal health care for those who don't have private insurance. And while still in its infancy where long term problems are unknown, one good thing about this program is that it only cost the city $750 thousand dollars.
Meanwhile, across the bay, the city of Oakland legalized and now taxes marijuana to the conservative estimate that it will bring in over $500 thousand dollars.
I understand the math would be a little off on all of it, different cities, different economies, but the general idea is there and has continuously been over looked by the Federal government. Legalize marijuana and use the tax revenues for funding a public health care option. Governor Schwartzenagger has already conservatively estimated an income of $1.5 billion in tax revenue.
Tax funded abortion? There are 2 bills that I know of, including one of the big three proposed by the House Tri-Committee that would pay for what they are terming "family services to certain low-income women". While this is a hot button issue, Political Liability is hoping to get an answer to the exact definition in early September as we hope to attend a town hall meeting with Ways and Means committee member, Representative Yarmuth.
Crazy Gun Owners With all the news about how President Obama has received more death threats than any other president, and the media's correlation to it having to do with him being black, why do gun owners have to flaunt the fact that their state has carry and conceal weapon laws? Seriously, do you actually think a rally, in which the President or members of Congress as well as small children are attending, is an appropriate place for your gun?
Gun owners what to use the argument that they have the right to carry guns under the Second Amendment for protection. Than use it for protection, and not as a focus point by saying "I have a gun and the right to carry it". The government is not going to open fire at a rally, there fore there is no real need to openly or otherwise carry a weapon to a town hall rally. All your doing is allowing the main stream media the right to say that all the protesters are crazy nut jobs.
Executive Foot-in-Mouth Syndrome President Obama needs to actually think before he says anything as it pertains to health care reform. When talking about it at his first town hall meeting, he compared a government run public option to the post office. Saying how Fed-Ex and UPS are doing well and it's the USPS that needs help. That's not going to win over people on the fence since the postal service is seeing a dramatic dip in services, has gone all but bankrupt and has been pushing for almost a year the request to go from 6 to 5 day work weeks. Now we've come to expect these gaffes from Vice President Joe "not in my neighborhood" Biden, Secretary of State Hillary "I'm the Secretary of State, not my husband" Clinton, and Speaker of the House Nancy "Speaking out is unAmerican" Pelosi, but Mr. President, you ran on how well you can win over a crowd, we expect a little more thought from you.
In Need of Public Option If President Obama wants to have affordable health care coverage for all, the nation needs a public option. Americans need to get their heads out of their back sides and realize that health care needs to be a universal right for EVERYONE. We need to stop focusing on our own individuality and look at what is good for the nation. Now, I understand that this is a stern 180 from my view of keeping the government out of our lives, but this needs to happen. Anything outside a public option is not Health Care reform, it's simply Health Care renegotiation, especially when you are going to force Americans into health care.
A universal health care, although viewed as socialistic, would not turn us into a socialist society. It would show that we as a nation get the fact that health care and health coverage is a universal human right and is not limited to the rich getting the best coverage while the poor are stuck going to overcrowded clinics seeing doctors who take glimpses while the rich have sit down conversations with their doctors. And that is the point. Don't I have the same right to the same quality health care as President Obama or Bill Gates? Or are we so egotistical that we believe our social class allows us the right to receive better or worse health care?
Bay Area's Got It Right As reported on CNN on Monday, the city of San Fransisco has introduced universal health care for those who don't have private insurance. And while still in its infancy where long term problems are unknown, one good thing about this program is that it only cost the city $750 thousand dollars.
Meanwhile, across the bay, the city of Oakland legalized and now taxes marijuana to the conservative estimate that it will bring in over $500 thousand dollars.
I understand the math would be a little off on all of it, different cities, different economies, but the general idea is there and has continuously been over looked by the Federal government. Legalize marijuana and use the tax revenues for funding a public health care option. Governor Schwartzenagger has already conservatively estimated an income of $1.5 billion in tax revenue.
Tax funded abortion? There are 2 bills that I know of, including one of the big three proposed by the House Tri-Committee that would pay for what they are terming "family services to certain low-income women". While this is a hot button issue, Political Liability is hoping to get an answer to the exact definition in early September as we hope to attend a town hall meeting with Ways and Means committee member, Representative Yarmuth.
Crazy Gun Owners With all the news about how President Obama has received more death threats than any other president, and the media's correlation to it having to do with him being black, why do gun owners have to flaunt the fact that their state has carry and conceal weapon laws? Seriously, do you actually think a rally, in which the President or members of Congress as well as small children are attending, is an appropriate place for your gun?
Gun owners what to use the argument that they have the right to carry guns under the Second Amendment for protection. Than use it for protection, and not as a focus point by saying "I have a gun and the right to carry it". The government is not going to open fire at a rally, there fore there is no real need to openly or otherwise carry a weapon to a town hall rally. All your doing is allowing the main stream media the right to say that all the protesters are crazy nut jobs.
Executive Foot-in-Mouth Syndrome President Obama needs to actually think before he says anything as it pertains to health care reform. When talking about it at his first town hall meeting, he compared a government run public option to the post office. Saying how Fed-Ex and UPS are doing well and it's the USPS that needs help. That's not going to win over people on the fence since the postal service is seeing a dramatic dip in services, has gone all but bankrupt and has been pushing for almost a year the request to go from 6 to 5 day work weeks. Now we've come to expect these gaffes from Vice President Joe "not in my neighborhood" Biden, Secretary of State Hillary "I'm the Secretary of State, not my husband" Clinton, and Speaker of the House Nancy "Speaking out is unAmerican" Pelosi, but Mr. President, you ran on how well you can win over a crowd, we expect a little more thought from you.
Fear Mongering works both ways While Republicans are using the old, tired tactic that universal health care will lead to socialism in the United States, the Democrats have pushed fear just as hard. President Obama continuously says that no reform is even more dangerous. To that, I have to disagree. While, yes health care reform is needed, it is going to effect ALL AMERICANS and therefore should not be pushed through Congress like "Cash for Clunkers" or the Stimulus Plan. It needs to be thought out, there are several issues that need to be discussed, such as: how are we going to pay for it? How are we going to make it affordable for all Americans? What are "pregnancy related services"? If we expand Medicare, are we going to actually make it better or just keep trapping people in it? etc.
Moving Some Things Around I had previously promised a report on Native Americans in America, and then this whole Health Care thing blew up causing my focus to shift. Well, we are still working on that piece, but I'd like to thank CNN for bringing the subject up on "State of the Union" on Sunday. Their focus was on Shannon County in South Dakota. A county that is 90% Native American and has both a poverty rate and unemployment rate of over 80%, with the latter being at 90%.
Monday, August 10, 2009
In Response to Main Stream Media
The main stream media wants you to believe that all the protesters both tea partiers and health care rioters are based out of some ultra-conservative, super right wing, Republican backed camp. And once again, they are over simplifying a growing situation in order to keep a rebellion down. They want to claim that anyone who does not support the President of the United States is a racist, like many of his supporters did while he was nominee Obama.
I say that the unfortunate thing that the main stream media is ignoring is that the United States government, a government that claims to be "for the people, by the people" is in fact using the people as pawns in their little game. The Democrats are crying about the town hall meetings turning into shouting matches with people being removed and physical altercations set up by corporation backed, special interest parties. Meanwhile, at tea parties, the Republicans claim that ACORN sent out it's mobilized troops to stir up the crowds in order to discredit the movement.
I'm sorry, but I thought that the First Amendment gave us the right to assemble. The freedom of speech. I thought this country was founded on telling those in power where they can stick it, because we won't take it. I thought we were a nation founded on the principles of truth and justice, and not being told what to do. Yet this administration is doing just the opposite. They are telling us how and where we can spend our money, and if we don't like it tough. The "Cash for Clunkers" program, while great on paper, tells Americans that they can only spend their money on new cars or not get it. That 2 extra billion the government pulled out of thin air, while maintaining a trillion dollars debt, and owing around that same amount to Communist China, a country that not only oppresses the freedom of religion, and speech, but tells its people how many children they can have, leading to numerous amounts of baby girls being left out in the mountains to die, that 2 billion is not for the American people, it's another auto industry bail out.
The program is called "Car Allowance Rebate". Allowance, like we are children that need to be told what to do and where we can and can not spend our money. As I said in my "Conspiracy Theory" post, this money is designed to put more new cars out on the road. And while I'm all for green technology, and cleaner more fuel efficient cars and energy, why is the government telling us that this is the only place we can spend $4,500? At least Bush sent us the check and told us we could spend it however, and where ever we wanted. Americans don't need to go further in debt with car payments, yet many are because the government tells them to do it.
Meanwhile, this administration promised no new taxes on middle income families in the form of payroll taxes, etc. However, just like any true politician, the President has side stepped the issue of no new taxes on families directly, to indirectly adding new taxes. The already passed and in effect taxes on vices such as alcohol and tobacco, and now there is still talk of taxing soda to pay for health care. A policy that eventually will be fully run by the United States government where the government tells you what policy is best for you because you don't know any better. And while I still have questions about it, I do know that the current bill still allows for tax payer money to fund abortions, it also will force Americans to take on the government's health care if a citizen wants to simply change their out of pocket expenses.
I know that many of my views come off as Republican, and the main stream media will just say that the Republicans are poor losers and are crying about losing the last couple of elections. And nothing could be further from the truth. If you had talked to me this time last year, my views would have seemed more Democratic. In fact, in local politics my last two times, when I voted for the main stream parties, it was Democrats. I am a firm believer that there needs to be an end to our supposed democracy based on two party system.
But, back to the point I was trying to make. I think by claiming that those who speak out against government interaction are backed by some corporation and their sole mission is to bring down the President is a dangerous accusation. The Democrats have already claimed that they will pass the health care bill with or without bi-partisan help. Kind of like the kid at school who will listen to why you want to use his ball, but tells you in the long run, it's his ball and he'll play with it how he wants to. I am not backed by a corporate sponsor. There is no sponsorship on this blog, the closes thing to it is what books I like to read. Instead let me give you another theory, one that was stated 10 years ago, and rings truer today more than ever:
One of the trending topics on twitter today is #nevertrust, and I say, Never trust a government that is going to tell you how to spend your own money. As teens we fought our parents on how we were going to spend the money that we earned, and now the Federal government is acting like our parents and telling us how and where we can spend our hard earn money, and we should be very, very pissed off.
I say that the unfortunate thing that the main stream media is ignoring is that the United States government, a government that claims to be "for the people, by the people" is in fact using the people as pawns in their little game. The Democrats are crying about the town hall meetings turning into shouting matches with people being removed and physical altercations set up by corporation backed, special interest parties. Meanwhile, at tea parties, the Republicans claim that ACORN sent out it's mobilized troops to stir up the crowds in order to discredit the movement.
I'm sorry, but I thought that the First Amendment gave us the right to assemble. The freedom of speech. I thought this country was founded on telling those in power where they can stick it, because we won't take it. I thought we were a nation founded on the principles of truth and justice, and not being told what to do. Yet this administration is doing just the opposite. They are telling us how and where we can spend our money, and if we don't like it tough. The "Cash for Clunkers" program, while great on paper, tells Americans that they can only spend their money on new cars or not get it. That 2 extra billion the government pulled out of thin air, while maintaining a trillion dollars debt, and owing around that same amount to Communist China, a country that not only oppresses the freedom of religion, and speech, but tells its people how many children they can have, leading to numerous amounts of baby girls being left out in the mountains to die, that 2 billion is not for the American people, it's another auto industry bail out.
The program is called "Car Allowance Rebate". Allowance, like we are children that need to be told what to do and where we can and can not spend our money. As I said in my "Conspiracy Theory" post, this money is designed to put more new cars out on the road. And while I'm all for green technology, and cleaner more fuel efficient cars and energy, why is the government telling us that this is the only place we can spend $4,500? At least Bush sent us the check and told us we could spend it however, and where ever we wanted. Americans don't need to go further in debt with car payments, yet many are because the government tells them to do it.
Meanwhile, this administration promised no new taxes on middle income families in the form of payroll taxes, etc. However, just like any true politician, the President has side stepped the issue of no new taxes on families directly, to indirectly adding new taxes. The already passed and in effect taxes on vices such as alcohol and tobacco, and now there is still talk of taxing soda to pay for health care. A policy that eventually will be fully run by the United States government where the government tells you what policy is best for you because you don't know any better. And while I still have questions about it, I do know that the current bill still allows for tax payer money to fund abortions, it also will force Americans to take on the government's health care if a citizen wants to simply change their out of pocket expenses.
I know that many of my views come off as Republican, and the main stream media will just say that the Republicans are poor losers and are crying about losing the last couple of elections. And nothing could be further from the truth. If you had talked to me this time last year, my views would have seemed more Democratic. In fact, in local politics my last two times, when I voted for the main stream parties, it was Democrats. I am a firm believer that there needs to be an end to our supposed democracy based on two party system.
But, back to the point I was trying to make. I think by claiming that those who speak out against government interaction are backed by some corporation and their sole mission is to bring down the President is a dangerous accusation. The Democrats have already claimed that they will pass the health care bill with or without bi-partisan help. Kind of like the kid at school who will listen to why you want to use his ball, but tells you in the long run, it's his ball and he'll play with it how he wants to. I am not backed by a corporate sponsor. There is no sponsorship on this blog, the closes thing to it is what books I like to read. Instead let me give you another theory, one that was stated 10 years ago, and rings truer today more than ever:
"I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off." -Fight Club (1999)
One of the trending topics on twitter today is #nevertrust, and I say, Never trust a government that is going to tell you how to spend your own money. As teens we fought our parents on how we were going to spend the money that we earned, and now the Federal government is acting like our parents and telling us how and where we can spend our hard earn money, and we should be very, very pissed off.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Aftermath of the Flood
"It's Raining; It's Pouring; The Old Man Is Snoring"
Tuesday morning saw the largest single day rainfall in over a 100 years. In a matter of minutes the streets became impassable and within a matter of hours houses found themselves taking on water. It lead many to wonder what we have done wrong. Since April of 2008, my city had been hit with an earthquake (4/08), a windstorm caused by Hurricane Ike (9/08), an Ice Storm (2/09) and now a flash flood (8/09). However, my family had survived many of these disasters, until now.
Our basement took on water, about 9 inches give or take. Talking with neighbors, we were lucky. The neighbor across the street took on 2 feet. Neighbors down the road took on 3 1/2 feet and were stuck in their house as their front lawn became part of the newly developed lake. To make matters worse, no sooner had the water receded, several hours later, than another neighbor's house caught on fire. The Public Library and nearest hospital both took on water, with damages conservatively estimated to date at 2 million dollars. The major university found itself under water with 7 buildings being flooded out.
You never really realize how people use different parts of their houses. The basement is used so differently by so many different people. Our basement was our laundry room, but we also kept our books from college and the baby accessories our son had out grown, all of it gone now. Our immediate neighbor used his as an apartment, couches and chairs all gone. Another neighbor, across the street used hers to store some of her collectibles, heirlooms and the things belonging to her two youngest, one who just got out of the Marines, and moved in with his soon to be in-laws, and the other son who is currently serving with the Marines in Afghanistan, all lost in the flood. That was our Tuesday.
On Wednesday, after the initial clean up, the mayor made his announcement about what the benchmarks are for the city in order to receive Federal funding by FEMA and for the President to declare a State of Emergency. All of which falls on the city since the state was not effected by the rain storm. The head of the city health department came on and told people to throw out any clothes that got wet since the flood water was from the sewers and were contaminated. A good majority of our clothes were wet, with a few exceptions. Throwing out all our clothes was and is not a possibility based on our income. The original hopes were to save at least half, but after putting on the rubber gloves and ringing out the clothes, one at a time, by hand, and seeing the nasty yellow film that stained the gloves, we knew that wasn't going to happen. We now are just going to try and save the clothes we can. We threw out several large bags of clothes while washing some that will never be the same again.
We realized what it was we had to do and started calling friends and family to see if they could help us in any way. Provide us with hand me down linens, towels and clothing. My mother in-law is taking up a collection and is coming down this weekend, since we live near 2 of her other daughters and we were all effected by the flood, to help clean up. That was our Wednesday.
It's now Thursday. I'm back to work, having taken the last few days off, I couldn't get out of my duties today. It's an all day work day, so cleaning up is out of the question. I have, however, started trying to recover by asking for help from fellow members of the fraternity I was in while in college. And much to my surprise, within a matter of hours I have already received emails from members, even ones I have never met, who want to help us out by donating clothes.
My weekend, starting Friday, will consist of cleaning up. Tomorrow, I'm taking off and will hopefully finish up my basement. From there we will descend on other houses that need help to finish up their clean up hopefully before the mold really sets in. That is my weekend plans.
It takes losing all these things that make you realize what you have and how special it truly is. While we have lost a great majority of our clothes, bedding and what not, we still have a home, we still have our health, and we still have each other, and that is all that matters. And with the help of our friends and family, we will make it out of this. Yes, some of the things that were lost can't be replaced, and that is awful. But at the end of the day, they were just paper and materials.
However, if the President wants to see an economic stimulus, give those effected by this flood $4,500 that you would give the "Cash for Clunkers". If Congress can pull $2 billion out of the air to allow "Cash for Clunkers" to keep going, they should be able to pull a few hundred thousand for families that may not have lost their houses, although some have, but for families who have lost clothes and appliances.
But in the end, they are just materials goods. If the government wants to give me money, I'll take it. If friends and family do, we'll take it. At the end of the day, I am not my khakis.
Tuesday morning saw the largest single day rainfall in over a 100 years. In a matter of minutes the streets became impassable and within a matter of hours houses found themselves taking on water. It lead many to wonder what we have done wrong. Since April of 2008, my city had been hit with an earthquake (4/08), a windstorm caused by Hurricane Ike (9/08), an Ice Storm (2/09) and now a flash flood (8/09). However, my family had survived many of these disasters, until now.
Our basement took on water, about 9 inches give or take. Talking with neighbors, we were lucky. The neighbor across the street took on 2 feet. Neighbors down the road took on 3 1/2 feet and were stuck in their house as their front lawn became part of the newly developed lake. To make matters worse, no sooner had the water receded, several hours later, than another neighbor's house caught on fire. The Public Library and nearest hospital both took on water, with damages conservatively estimated to date at 2 million dollars. The major university found itself under water with 7 buildings being flooded out.
You never really realize how people use different parts of their houses. The basement is used so differently by so many different people. Our basement was our laundry room, but we also kept our books from college and the baby accessories our son had out grown, all of it gone now. Our immediate neighbor used his as an apartment, couches and chairs all gone. Another neighbor, across the street used hers to store some of her collectibles, heirlooms and the things belonging to her two youngest, one who just got out of the Marines, and moved in with his soon to be in-laws, and the other son who is currently serving with the Marines in Afghanistan, all lost in the flood. That was our Tuesday.
On Wednesday, after the initial clean up, the mayor made his announcement about what the benchmarks are for the city in order to receive Federal funding by FEMA and for the President to declare a State of Emergency. All of which falls on the city since the state was not effected by the rain storm. The head of the city health department came on and told people to throw out any clothes that got wet since the flood water was from the sewers and were contaminated. A good majority of our clothes were wet, with a few exceptions. Throwing out all our clothes was and is not a possibility based on our income. The original hopes were to save at least half, but after putting on the rubber gloves and ringing out the clothes, one at a time, by hand, and seeing the nasty yellow film that stained the gloves, we knew that wasn't going to happen. We now are just going to try and save the clothes we can. We threw out several large bags of clothes while washing some that will never be the same again.
We realized what it was we had to do and started calling friends and family to see if they could help us in any way. Provide us with hand me down linens, towels and clothing. My mother in-law is taking up a collection and is coming down this weekend, since we live near 2 of her other daughters and we were all effected by the flood, to help clean up. That was our Wednesday.
It's now Thursday. I'm back to work, having taken the last few days off, I couldn't get out of my duties today. It's an all day work day, so cleaning up is out of the question. I have, however, started trying to recover by asking for help from fellow members of the fraternity I was in while in college. And much to my surprise, within a matter of hours I have already received emails from members, even ones I have never met, who want to help us out by donating clothes.
My weekend, starting Friday, will consist of cleaning up. Tomorrow, I'm taking off and will hopefully finish up my basement. From there we will descend on other houses that need help to finish up their clean up hopefully before the mold really sets in. That is my weekend plans.
It takes losing all these things that make you realize what you have and how special it truly is. While we have lost a great majority of our clothes, bedding and what not, we still have a home, we still have our health, and we still have each other, and that is all that matters. And with the help of our friends and family, we will make it out of this. Yes, some of the things that were lost can't be replaced, and that is awful. But at the end of the day, they were just paper and materials.
However, if the President wants to see an economic stimulus, give those effected by this flood $4,500 that you would give the "Cash for Clunkers". If Congress can pull $2 billion out of the air to allow "Cash for Clunkers" to keep going, they should be able to pull a few hundred thousand for families that may not have lost their houses, although some have, but for families who have lost clothes and appliances.
But in the end, they are just materials goods. If the government wants to give me money, I'll take it. If friends and family do, we'll take it. At the end of the day, I am not my khakis.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Conspiracy Theory
The Obama administration hasn't shied away from flexing their political guns since the beginning of the term. And while this is understandable, as some will say that they only way to clean anything up or get anything done is taking a hardline stance on your goals and objectives, there is something that we may actually want to take a deeper look into and it pertains to the "cash for clunkers" government program.
While Barack Obama has flexed his guns by taking aim at news agencies (if that's what you can call Fox News) and states by calling the governor of Arizona after the President's stimulus bill was questioned by a senator, he has now taken aim at all of his political opponents through a symbolic gesture by euthenizing the clunkers.
Instead of helping trying to build up the used car industry, an industry that puts out old cars at a rate cheaper than buying brand new cars, thus making buying cars semi affordable for everyone, the Obama administration has instead destroyed every clunker brought into a new car dealership by pouring a saline solution into the engine killing the car and rendering it useless. So not only does this effectively kill the used car industry, creating the starts of a monopoly on car sales (by which I mean you can only buy new cars) it effectively limits the amount of used car parts for those whose hobby or job it is to use said parts for rebuilding or repair projects.
So, for someone like my brother-in-law who is putting together an old school VW bus-truck, for every engine or motor part that is traded in that could be conpatable, it has now gone off the market, never to be used, since the euthenized vehicles have to be sent to a government aproved "farm". This also hinders those who are not able to afford a new vehicle even at the rebated reduced price. So when ever my 94 clunker needs repairs, the parts will be even more limited than they are now.
So where is the symbolizm? Well, with the government killing the old vehicles it can be viewed as one of two ways. The glass half full thought of "happy government, thanks for looking out for us, dawn of a new era" which many have chosen to do, or the glass half empty thought of "the goevernment is showing those industries who are not in line that when it takes over, the old way will effectively be killed out, so watch out health care industry". Really this is for you all to decide.
On a side note, for a country so in debt, where did Congress find this 2 BILLION dollars it's going to use to keep "Cash for Clunkers" going? And how is this usage of monopoly money effecting the dollar on the make believe world government ran markets?
While Barack Obama has flexed his guns by taking aim at news agencies (if that's what you can call Fox News) and states by calling the governor of Arizona after the President's stimulus bill was questioned by a senator, he has now taken aim at all of his political opponents through a symbolic gesture by euthenizing the clunkers.
Instead of helping trying to build up the used car industry, an industry that puts out old cars at a rate cheaper than buying brand new cars, thus making buying cars semi affordable for everyone, the Obama administration has instead destroyed every clunker brought into a new car dealership by pouring a saline solution into the engine killing the car and rendering it useless. So not only does this effectively kill the used car industry, creating the starts of a monopoly on car sales (by which I mean you can only buy new cars) it effectively limits the amount of used car parts for those whose hobby or job it is to use said parts for rebuilding or repair projects.
So, for someone like my brother-in-law who is putting together an old school VW bus-truck, for every engine or motor part that is traded in that could be conpatable, it has now gone off the market, never to be used, since the euthenized vehicles have to be sent to a government aproved "farm". This also hinders those who are not able to afford a new vehicle even at the rebated reduced price. So when ever my 94 clunker needs repairs, the parts will be even more limited than they are now.
So where is the symbolizm? Well, with the government killing the old vehicles it can be viewed as one of two ways. The glass half full thought of "happy government, thanks for looking out for us, dawn of a new era" which many have chosen to do, or the glass half empty thought of "the goevernment is showing those industries who are not in line that when it takes over, the old way will effectively be killed out, so watch out health care industry". Really this is for you all to decide.
On a side note, for a country so in debt, where did Congress find this 2 BILLION dollars it's going to use to keep "Cash for Clunkers" going? And how is this usage of monopoly money effecting the dollar on the make believe world government ran markets?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Suscribe to PL
Posts
All Comments