WASHINGTON - Many elders who need assistance wind up spending their savings in order to be poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, so they can enter a nursing home, when they might just need regular help around the house and regular home nurse visits.
That right there is an AmeriKan scandal! The richest country in the world.....
See: Healthcare Hustle
All working Americans would automatically be enrolled in the plan unless they choose to opt out. Students and poor people would pay only $5 a month, others would pay not more than an average of $65 a month....
Do they think we are just made of $$$, or.... ?
Republicans have expressed distaste at the cost of the Democratic proposals being floated so far - particularly those from Kennedy's committee. Yesterday a Republican aide who was not authorized to speak for the record said the long-term care proposals could be very expensive....
So are WARS based on LIES and BANK BAILOUTS (as well as aid to Israel), but there is no hubbub there!
--more--"
WASHINGTON - A preliminary financial analysis Monday of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s health committee proposal to fix healthcare could hardly have looked worse: It would cost $1 trillion over the next decade to cover fewer than one-third of the nation’s nearly 50 million uninsured....
Sigh (Blog editor's shoulders slump)
Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa: “I kind of wake up at night thinking, ‘My gosh, we could wind up with a more convoluted system than we have now.’ We could just be multiplying the points in our system that create waste and abuse and cost us so much money.’’
I suspected that's what it was all about.
Related: Why Obama Wants A Health Care Bill This Year
For Democrats leading the effort to overhaul healthcare, the financial news only got worse yesterday. Douglas Elmendorf, the CBO director and the final arbiter of the cost of any proposal, acknowledged on his blog that if Congress does nothing, healthcare will continue to grow at an unsustainable pace....
Single-payer, single-payer, single-payer....
Elmendorf also threw cold water on the value of the health industry’s promise to Obama - a pledge much ballyhooed by the administration - to help lower health costs by $2 trillion over the next decade....
Actually, I MYSELF was wondering WHERE THEY BEEN!
WASHINGTON - Senators on a key committee are putting the finishing touches on a government health insurance option that they hope will win broad support among Democrats and the public.
Is it a single-payer plan? Then ferget it!
An upfront loan from taxpayers would get the plan started, but it would have to pay its own way after a few months, relying on premiums collected from beneficiaries to stay solvent....
Pffft!! (Blog editor just shaking his head)
--more--"
And you GOTTA LOVE this SLOW SATURDAY/HOLIDAY SPECIAL!
"Healthcare overhaul could limit tax breaks on benefits" by Lisa Wangsness, Globe Staff | July 4, 2009
WASHINGTON - For the secretaries and environmental engineers, game wardens and van drivers who work for the state of New Hampshire, surgery is free, even at Boston’s top teaching hospitals if it’s necessary. So are MRIs, CT scans, and X-rays.
Pregnant women pay nothing for prenatal care; alcoholics aren’t billed for short stints in rehab. Seeing a therapist costs just $10, as many as 20 visits a year, and prescription drugs top out at $30 for a three-month mail-order supply. New Hampshire state employees get $450 annually toward gym memberships, if they go regularly, or $200 toward their own treadmill - and there’s a $150 annual reimbursement for yoga classes, diabetes clinics, and nutritional counseling.
They have what some call “gold-plated’’ or “Cadillac’’ health insurance. For just $60 a month, state workers’ families get coverage worth $20,400 a year, about 62 percent more than the plan the average American family gets through work. And because the federal government excludes health benefits from taxation, they pay no income taxes on any of it. But that may be about to change.
Desperate to find ways to pay for a healthcare overhaul that could cost more than $1 trillion over the next decade, Congress has begun to look longingly at limiting the tax exclusion on employer-sponsored health benefits, which cost the federal government an estimated $225 billion in foregone tax revenue in 2008.
That's a HUGE F*** YOU to the American worker (those that are left)!
Get it from the Pentagon, Israel, or the banks, damn ya!!!
Ending the tax break entirely is out of the question politically, but next week the Senate Finance Committee is likely to propose limiting it in some fashion - by requiring people with the most expensive insurance, or the highest incomes, or both, to pay some taxes on their health benefits....
That's their answer to everything.
Opponents of the tax exclusion want to get rid of it because they say it is grossly unfair - it gives the biggest tax break to those with the highest salaries and the best benefits, while the millions of Americans who don’t get insurance through their employer get little or no help at all.
That's the way the WHOLE SYSTEM is set up, not just the health sector.
“It provides enormous tax breaks to those who need them least, and little or nothing for millions of working families who really need help,’’ said Robert E. Moffit, director of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health Policy. “If you are going to give a tax break, you should give it to taxpayers evenly.’’
Ahem! Obama Looked Sick Last Night
But Diana Lacey, the chair of collective bargaining for the New Hampshire state employees’ union, says it’s wrong to call their plan “Cadillac’’ coverage, or to encourage employers to offer workers skimpy coverage. A health overhaul, she said, should “bring people up to the standard we have - healthcare that is responsible and affordable and you don’t have to go bankrupt to get the treatment you need.’’
YUP!
If OTHERS can FIGURE IT OUT, then the SMARTEST, MOST INDUSTRIOUS people on the planet can, right, 'murkn?
'murkn?
Defending the status quo is an unlikely set of allies - executives of major corporations, who like being able to use tax-free health benefits to attract and retain employees; labor union leaders, who argue their members have sacrificed higher wages over the years to gain and retain good coverage; and some liberals who believe all Americans should have a generous health plan....
No SINGLE-PAYER OPTION for you "lefties," 'eh?
“If they think they’re protesting in Iran, if they pass a healthcare bill that’s going to tax my members’ benefits, they ain’t seen nothing yet,’’ said Terry O’Sullivan, the union’s president....
I'll believe that BLUSTER when I SEE IT!
Critics of the tax exclusion say it contributes to out-of-control growth in healthcare spending: Not taxing health benefits lets employers offer healthcare plans at a discount, which leads to more generous coverage that encourages beneficiaries to use more medical services. And since the supply of medical care is limited, costs rise for everyone....
Yeah, God help you if you should actually want to use the health system!
It's great to TALK about how GREAT it is, but DON'T ACTUALLY TRY to USE IT here in AmeriKa!
Over time, the benefits that allowed Lacey to get great healthcare without falling into debt as a young single mother have become an enormous liability for New Hampshire taxpayers.
Well, SINCE WHEN has the PAPER CARED about TAXPAYERS!?
In NEW HAMPSHIRE of all places!!!
The Globe just spents months pushing a tax hike down our throats and bashing New Hampshire!
As a result, the state has gradually pressured workers to contribute more to their healthcare in the form of modest monthly contributions and small copays. It’s a trend happening around the country as employees are facing growing out-of-pocket costs, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
But TRILLIONS for WARS and BANKS is OKAY!!!!!
Limiting the exclusion, however, will not be easy politically. Larry Levitt, vice president of the Kaiser Foundation, points out that its polling shows 54 percent of Americans oppose the idea. Most of those who were open to it instantly changed their minds when told it could result in fewer employers providing coverage, or that it would take away a benefit that some employees had accepted instead of wage increases. Most people, Levitt noted, have health insurance they like and would not welcome paying taxes on it.
Well, they THINK THEY DO -- until it comes time to USE IT!!!
As a candidate, Obama assured voters he wouldn’t increase taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year, and he spent millions of dollars on TV ads lambasting Republican John McCain’s proposal to replace the tax exclusion for health benefits with a tax credit for all Americans. With pressure mounting to pass a hugely expensive healthcare bill, Obama has said he would consider capping the tax break....
Capping tax-free health benefits at the price of a basic family plan offered to members of Congress - about $13,500 a year - would raise $420 billion over the next decade. The Senate Finance Committee is considering a higher limit of $17,000, or about $4,500 more than the average family plan costs.
Yeah, why can't WE HAVE what THEY HAVE because TAXPAYERS are PAYING FOR IT ALL anyway!!!!!
“You’re going to have a fight on your hands no matter what,’’ said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, an advocate of limiting the tax deduction, who is advising the administration and Congress. “It’s a trade-off between raising enough money to make the fight worth it and how many people you have to fight with.’’
Guess who gets screwed in the end (literally and figuratively), taxpayers?
And just to make sure you get the point:
"Budget watchdog warns on healthcare plans; Says bills will increase public spending" by Lori Montgomery, Washington Post | July 17, 2009
WASHINGTON - Instead of saving the federal government from fiscal catastrophe, the healthcare overhaul bills being drafted by congressional Democrats would increase rather than reduce public spending on healthcare, potentially worsening an already bleak budget outlook, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said yesterday.
Then SHUT DOWN the WARS!
Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, CBO director, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose “the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.’’
“On the contrary,’’ Elmendorf said, “the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for healthcare costs.’’
The CBO is the official arbiter of the costs of legislation, and Elmendorf’s stark testimony is certain to undermine support for the measures, even as three House panels began debate yesterday with the aim of putting a bill on the House floor before the August recess.
Fiscally conservative House Democrats were threatening to block passage of legislation in the Energy and Commerce Committee, primarily because of concerns about the long-term costs of the House bill. Cost is also a major issue in the Senate, where some moderate Democrats have joined Republicans in calling on Obama to drop his demand that both chambers pass a bill before the August recess....
He has.
Asked what provisions would be needed to slow the growth in federal health spending, Elmendorf urged lawmakers to begin taxing employer-provided health benefits, calling the tax-free treatment a federal subsidy that encourages spending on ever more expensive health packages.
He JUST BLEW HIS CRED right there -- as I blow my breakfast.
Key senators, including the Senate Budget chairman, Kent Conrad, have been pressing to tax employer-provided benefits, and there’s wide agreement among economists that such a tax would give businesses and individuals an incentive to become thriftier consumers.
Tell it to the COST-OVERUN WAR-LOOTERS!!!!!
But Senate leaders last week objected, saying the idea does not have enough support among Senate Democrats to win passage. Critics of the proposal say it would target police and firefighters, who receive generous benefits packages. And if the tax is trimmed to apply only to upper-income beneficiaries, it would lose its effectiveness as a cost-containment measure.
Harry Reid of Nevada, Senate majority leader, dismissed Elmendorf’s push for the benefits tax. “What he should do is maybe run for Congress,’’ Reid said.
Oh, he's so glib!
Max Baucus, the Senate Finance chairman, however, expressed frustration that the tax on employer-funded benefits had fallen out of favor, in part because the White House opposes the idea. Baucus said Obama had hindered his efforts to reach a bipartisan deal. Taxing high-cost employer-provided health insurance benefits was the finance panel’s primary way of financing the bill, generating roughly $320 billion of the $1 trillion, 10-year price tag....
Then END the WARS!
Obama, meanwhile, was doing all he could to encourage Congress to act. He met yesterday with two potential Senate swing votes, Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, and Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican. The president’s political organization has launched a television ad campaign aimed at nudging moderate Democrats off the fence.
Yeah, I saw one yesterday. Didn't like it.
Reid, however, dismissed the ads as “a waste of money’’ and called the campaign “Democrats running ads against Democrats.’’
Oh, I like that last idea.
Also see:
Doctor's Note
Health Bill Loaded With Pork
Obama's SicKo Sequel
No Choice But Single Payer
No Need For Single-Payer
