SiCKO

[xr7g428]

Furious, You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that the Social Security Administration was "effective". You can also count on the information I provided to you to be factual. I have no vested interest in trying to do anything, but to set the record straight.

 

The money paid into Social Security feeds two primary benefits; retirement income, and disability income. If we are looking at what it means to be effective, then we would have to compare these with the same products as provided by commercial ventures.

 

The first measure of effectiveness would be the return on investment for the money invested towards retirement income. The rate of return for SSI is very very low compared to other alternatives. The second measure is risk. Although you have expressed your opinion that you feel the risk is very high, compared with any other type of investment the risk is very very low. So that means that there is a huge premium being paid for safety.

 

The disability part of Social Security is actually very low in cost, but it is also limited in the amount of income it can replace. It functions more or less as intended: a safety net, not a hammock. It also has several features that make it more like a straight welfare program (where people who have never paid in even $1 can get benefits) than any type of commercial insurance program. This means that this part of the program cannot be reasonably compared with anything commercially available.

 

So to bottom line the thing, IF we had a choice, I would opt out of the retirement income side of the system. However, I think that for the vast majority of people that will never plan for retirement, that this system is a good way to guarantee that that they won't be penniless.

 

I find it very hard to comprehend how some one who would trust the government to handle health insurance, would not be thrilled with the way that government is handling disability and retirement insurance. Compared to health insurance, Social Security is a cake walk. If you are ot happy with Social Security I cannot imagine how you could ever be happy with government handling anything more complex.

Edited March 5, 2010 by xr7g428

[Furious1Auto]

Furious, You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that the Social Security Administration was "effective". You can also count on the information I provided to you to be factual. I have no vested interest in trying to do anything, but to set the record straight.

 

The money paid into Social Security feeds two primary benefits; retirement income, and disability income. If we are looking at what it means to be effective, then we would have to compare these with the same products as provided by commercial ventures.

 

The first measure of effectiveness would be the return on investment for the money invested towards retirement income. The rate of return for SSI is very very low compared to other alternatives. The second measure is risk. Although you have expressed your opinion that you feel the risk is very high, compared with any other type of investment the risk is very very low. So that means that there is a huge premium being paid for safety.

 

The disability part of Social Security is actually very low in cost, but it is also limited in the amount of income it can replace. It functions more or less as intended: a safety net, not a hammock. It also has several features that make it more like a straight welfare program (where people who have never paid in even $1 can get benefits) than any type of commercial insurance program. This means that this part of the program cannot be reasonably compared with anything commercially available.

 

So to bottom line the thing, IF we had a choice, I would opt out of the retirement income side of the system. However, I think that for the vast majority of people that will never plan for retirement, that this system is a good way to guarantee that that they won't be penniless.

 

I find it very hard to comprehend how some one who would trust the government to handle health insurance, would not be thrilled with the way that government is handling disability and retirement insurance. Compared to health insurance, Social Security is a cake walk. If you are ot happy with Social Security I cannot imagine how you could ever be happy with government handling anything more complex.

 

 

It was a rhetorical question I asked Nap. My reasoning was to make his motive for supporting you obvious. He said that what you were saying was fact without ever "fact checking" your source, as if to say I was ignorant myself. So he decided to jump on your "band wagon" after making assertions that my positions change based on what is popular. He took a poke at me, and I calculated my swing back and knocked his ass out. Now that I have shown his intent to everyone following this thread, I can deal with you. You attacked me to defend the boomers, and tried to use my SSI argument against me, now once you have shown SSI 4.2 trillion in the black proving out that "the government does run an income tax based social service effectively", that they can also do so providing that entitlement to people who have not paid in. This includes illegal immigrants, handicapped, and people that have manipulated birth rite citizenship as a means to get government benefits without ever paying into the SSA.

 

Now because you have presented this info, and it was a means of discrediting me, and it somehow contradicts your position on universal healthcare you want to withdraw or clarify, and play semantics. Millions of Americans everyday collect checks from the SSA, and even people I don't feel should have any claim for it, but somehow the service remains in the black in the trillions. That is until everyone from your generation gets on the dole. Then the fund will be bankrupt and revert back to a pay-as-you-go system, at which point I will be correct in my earlier statements. At the bottom will be a video posted that explains what will happen, however it was from four years ago, and before the down turn in employment, and before it was obvious that the economy will not out perform Greespan's original estimates. You will have more people drawing then what you have paying in, and it is all linked to job outsourcing, and these wonderful advances in automation that have saved our backs on the line, and permanently eliminated millions of jobs. Once again future generations thank you all. Enjoy your retirement!

 

[xr7g428]

Furious, Are you ever confused.

 

First off the system began running out of money paying benefits for the generations that came well before the boomers. They paid in very small amounts of money and due to the hyper inflation of the '70s ended up collecting many times what they paid in. So the boomers had to pay in enough to cover that generation, plus build a huge surplus that will last about as long as the boomer generation. The leading edge of the boomers born in 1946 will be dead (on average) by 2031 and the last of the boomers born in 1960 will be dead (on average) by 2045. The first of the boomers to retire at 67 will begin retirement in 2013. The last will begin retirement in 2027. This means the boomers will continue to pay in for several more years. I suspect that we will also see a lot of boomers working well into their '70's. Your problem isn't the boomers.

 

Your lack of appreciation for the sacrifices made by the generations that preceded yours says a great deal more about you than it does about them. By all means, disrespect your elders, in particular your mother and father, and see how that works out for you. LOL!

 

You probably believe that the insurance companies oppose the current plan. You could not be more wrong. The new law will force every one to buy their product, and open up the federal treasury to pay for those who can't. Would Ford oppose a bill that mandated that every one buy a car, and offered a government subsidy to make sure it happened? Do you believe that there is single drug company that isn't relishing the idea that EVERYONE would have drug coverage?

 

People are slowly waking up to discover that this is corporate welfare on a scale never seen before.

 

If you go back and dig up my old posts you will find that I have predicted that we will end up with a single payer Canadian style system, not because it is better, but because the system as it is being promoted today ,is going to fail, and our only way out will be single payer.

 

The first problem with the current system is very simple: Health care costs too much. It doesn't matter who pays for it. The price is just more than we can afford.

 

The second problem is that people who have major health crises go bankrupt even when they have insurance. Nothing in the proposed system is going to fix this.

 

We are spending too much on health care as a society. The current plan INCREASES the total we spend by forcing every one to buy coverage that they do not need.

 

However, none of this matters because a large enough number of people believe that they will get more than they pay for under the new system.

 

Just curious, are you aware that Blue Cross Blue Shield is a not for profit? So no savings there from eliminating profits...

[Furious1Auto]

Furious, Are you ever confused.

 

First off the system began running out of money paying benefits for the generations that came well before the boomers. They paid in very small amounts of money and due to the hyper inflation of the '70s ended up collecting many times what they paid in. So the boomers had to pay in enough to cover that generation, plus build a huge surplus that will last about as long as the boomer generation. The leading edge of the boomers born in 1946 will be dead (on average) by 2031 and the last of the boomers born in 1960 will be dead (on average) by 2045. The first of the boomers to retire at 67 will begin retirement in 2013. The last will begin retirement in 2027. This means the boomers will continue to pay in for several more years. I suspect that we will also see a lot of boomers working well into their '70's. Your problem isn't the boomers.

 

Your lack of appreciation for the sacrifices made by the generations that preceded yours says a great deal more about you than it does about them. By all means, disrespect your elders, in particular your mother and father, and see how that works out for you. LOL!

 

You probably believe that the insurance companies oppose the current plan. You could not be more wrong. The new law will force every one to buy their product, and open up the federal treasury to pay for those who can't. Would Ford oppose a bill that mandated that every one buy a car, and offered a government subsidy to make sure it happened? Do you believe that there is single drug company that isn't relishing the idea that EVERYONE would have drug coverage?

 

People are slowly waking up to discover that this is corporate welfare on a scale never seen before.

 

If you go back and dig up my old posts you will find that I have predicted that we will end up with a single payer Canadian style system, not because it is better, but because the system as it is being promoted today ,is going to fail, and our only way out will be single payer.

 

The first problem with the current system is very simple: Health care costs too much. It doesn't matter who pays for it. The price is just more than we can afford.

 

The second problem is that people who have major health crises go bankrupt even when they have insurance. Nothing in the proposed system is going to fix this.

 

We are spending too much on health care as a society. The current plan INCREASES the total we spend by forcing every one to buy coverage that they do not need.

 

However, none of this matters because a large enough number of people believe that they will get more than they pay for under the new system.

 

Just curious, are you aware that Blue Cross Blue Shield is a not for profit? So no savings there from eliminating profits...

 

 

There have been several bills proposed and each with it's own set of earmarks. I did agree that a public option was a good idea, and I understand how it would help. However I do not support reform just for the sake of making a change, what ever the final bill is, it must have the basic fundamentals in place to drive down the costs to the individual policy holder. If it does not, and if it simply mandates that you purchase from insurers then it will not have my support. I do recognize that for it to save money for the individual that every working American will have to be vested. Does that mean I support people being penalized for not buying insurance, hell no. It should be deducted from income tax, and excise tax in order to assure that everyone contributes. Not to be paid on a voluntary basis so that people can be subjected to penalties for not contributing. My ultimate goal is to have universal healthcare, and yes Canada's system is better then ours. I have been to Canada enough times now to have the opportunity to talk to Canadians myself, I had considered moving there, but am not thrilled about giving up some of the rites I enjoy as a U.S. citizen. I will be visiting Canada again this year once the lake thaws.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Furious1Auto

[xr7g428]

Furious,

 

The version of the bill that is in the Senate right now is the final version. Obama is pushing the Senate to use budget reconciliation rules to pass the bill. This means two things: First it can pass with only 51 votes, and second, that they can only change budget related components of the bill. This means that there can be no policy changes from this point.

 

Now if you take a look at the bill that is in the Senate you will find that it includes most of the things that you mentioned you were not in favor of.

 

It doesn't reduce the cost of insurance premiums. In fact, since it mandates additional coverages that are not included in most current policies, (things like mental health coverage), it will actually cause premiums to rise. It also shifts people that are currently covered by other programs (SCHIP, Medicaid, and other state programs) into the insurance pool. Since many of these people had been excluded due to preexisting conditions, this will also increase the cost to the insurance companies.

 

It does require that every American purchase insurance or pay a penalty. There are many taxpayer funded subsidies that will shift cost to workers, and provide free or subsidized insurance for those at the bottom. So basically, if you are working and paying for your own coverage, you will continue to do so, but you will also be paying for coverage for those who are not working.

 

High value insurance policies, like the ones that UAW workers receive, were slated to be taxed as excessive compensation, but the union cut a deal with Obama to have the union policies specifically excluded. I have doubts that this wil survive a challenge in the Supreme Court, but that will take years to happen.

 

Of course I do not expect that you will accept any of this as fact, so please do you own research about exactly what is being passed.

[partsisparts]

Furious,

 

The version of the bill that is in the Senate right now is the final version. Obama is pushing the Senate to use budget reconciliation rules to pass the bill. This means two things: First it can pass with only 51 votes, and second, that they can only change budget related components of the bill. This means that there can be no policy changes from this point.

 

Now if you take a look at the bill that is in the Senate you will find that it includes most of the things that you mentioned you were not in favor of.

 

It doesn't reduce the cost of insurance premiums. In fact, since it mandates additional coverages that are not included in most current policies, (things like mental health coverage), it will actually cause premiums to rise. It also shifts people that are currently covered by other programs (SCHIP, Medicaid, and other state programs) into the insurance pool. Since many of these people had been excluded due to preexisting conditions, this will also increase the cost to the insurance companies.

 

It does require that every American purchase insurance or pay a penalty. There are many taxpayer funded subsidies that will shift cost to workers, and provide free or subsidized insurance for those at the bottom. So basically, if you are working and paying for your own coverage, you will continue to do so, but you will also be paying for coverage for those who are not working.

 

High value insurance policies, like the ones that UAW workers receive, were slated to be taxed as excessive compensation, but the union cut a deal with Obama to have the union policies specifically excluded. I have doubts that this wil survive a challenge in the Supreme Court, but that will take years to happen.

 

Of course I do not expect that you will accept any of this as fact, so please do you own research about exactly what is being passed.

Source please. As far as I can tell most of this info is incorrect.

[xr7g428]

Source please. As far as I can tell most of this info is incorrect.

 

Since you are too lazy to research this for yourself, what part specifically do you feel is incorrect?

Edited March 5, 2010 by xr7g428

[Furious1Auto]

Furious,

 

The version of the bill that is in the Senate right now is the final version. Obama is pushing the Senate to use budget reconciliation rules to pass the bill. This means two things: First it can pass with only 51 votes, and second, that they can only change budget related components of the bill. This means that there can be no policy changes from this point.

 

Now if you take a look at the bill that is in the Senate you will find that it includes most of the things that you mentioned you were not in favor of.

 

It doesn't reduce the cost of insurance premiums. In fact, since it mandates additional coverages that are not included in most current policies, (things like mental health coverage), it will actually cause premiums to rise. It also shifts people that are currently covered by other programs (SCHIP, Medicaid, and other state programs) into the insurance pool. Since many of these people had been excluded due to preexisting conditions, this will also increase the cost to the insurance companies.

 

It does require that every American purchase insurance or pay a penalty. There are many taxpayer funded subsidies that will shift cost to workers, and provide free or subsidized insurance for those at the bottom. So basically, if you are working and paying for your own coverage, you will continue to do so, but you will also be paying for coverage for those who are not working.

 

High value insurance policies, like the ones that UAW workers receive, were slated to be taxed as excessive compensation, but the union cut a deal with Obama to have the union policies specifically excluded. I have doubts that this wil survive a challenge in the Supreme Court, but that will take years to happen.

 

Of course I do not expect that you will accept any of this as fact, so please do you own research about exactly what is being passed.

 

 

Don't you mean it penalizes employers who do not automatically deduct it from their employees wages?

Edited March 5, 2010 by Furious1Auto

[xr7g428]

Don't you mean it penalizes employers who do not automatically deduct it from their employees wages?

 

Employers are not required to provide heath insurance.

 

The requirement in both the House and Senate health care bills that everyone buy health insurance. Anyone who doesn't buy it has to pay a fine—$750 per person if your income is up to three times the poverty level or $950 if you make more than that.

 

Here is a nice left wing site that you can check out regarding the possibility of even doing jail time if you don't buy insurance.

 

Imprisoned for Not Having Health Care?

Edited March 5, 2010 by xr7g428

[napfirst]

Of course I do not expect that you will accept any of this as fact, so please do you own research about exactly what is being passed.

 

What a unique idea...although I doubt he or Parts know how....

[xr7g428]

The bill would require all citizens and legal immigrants to obtain health coverage or pay a penalty, but households would be exempt from the penalty for failing to have insurance if their share of the premium costs for the lowest cost “bronze” plan available in the exchanges exceeded 8 percent of their income. The penalty for not having coverage would be $750 per uninsured adult and $375 per uninsured child in the household, with a maximum penalty of $2,250 per family. The penalties would be phased in between 2014 and 2016.

 

 

It is assumed that a lot of people will pay the penalty because it is still cheaper than what it will cost to pay for the insurance.

 

This is VERY complicated. Basically, the lower your income, the better your coverage is. As you income goes up, so does the deductible, and the co-pay. At the poverty level, your insurance covers about 97% of you health care costs, and as your income increases he coverage decreases to 70% of your costs. So if you factor in our total out of pocket expense, you can see that it is going to add up.

 

What Low- and Moderate-income Households Would Pay for Premiums

 

Under the bill, families and individuals with incomes between 133 and 400 percent of the poverty line (between $24,350 and $73,240 for a family of three in 2009) would receive premium credits to help offset the cost of insurance premiums for coverage they purchase in the new health insurance exchanges. The amounts these households would have to pay for premiums would be based on a sliding scale, under which households’ premium contributions would be set at 4 percent of income for households at 134 percent of the poverty line and would rise to 9.8 percent of income for those at 300 percent of the poverty line. The maximum amount that households would be required to pay would remain at 9.8 percent of income for those with incomes between 300 and 400 percent of the poverty line.[1]

 

These premium charges are lower than those that the Senate Finance Committee bill would have set for households between 154 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line. Middle-income households in the 300 percent-to-400 percent-of-poverty range would receive the largest reductions; they would pay a maximum of 9.8 percent of income for coverage under the new bill, as compared to 12 percent of income under the Finance Committee bill. But the premium charges would be higher than under the Finance Committee bill for households at the bottom end of the subsidy range. (See Table 1.)

 

Compared to the premiums under the bill that the House passed November 7, households between about 250 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line would pay less under the new Senate bill. Households with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty line would pay more. Some of those at the bottom of the subsidy scale would pay at least twice the amount they would pay under the House bill.

Cost Sharing Charges

 

Four types of plans would be sold in the exchanges — “bronze,” “silver,” “gold,” and “platinum” plans. Each type of plan would have different levels of cost-sharing (i.e., of deductibles, co-payments, and overall limits on out-of-pocket costs for covered services), expressed in terms of “actuarial value.” The actuarial value of a plan represents the average share of costs for covered health services that the plan would pay for a typical beneficiary population, as distinguished from the share of costs that beneficiaries pay through deductibles and co-payments. Actuarial value provides a way to measure the level of coverage that various insurance plans provide. Generally, plans with higher actuarial values have lower deductibles and co-payments and/or more comprehensive benefits.[2]

 

Under the Senate bill, people with incomes between 100 percent and 150 percent of the poverty line would receive the “platinum” level of coverage, which would have an actuarial value of 90 percent. In other words, it would cover 90 percent of the medical costs of a typical population, with beneficiaries, on average, paying the other 10 percent of costs out of pocket. At that actuarial value, plans would generally have only modest deductibles and co-payments.

 

People with incomes between 150 and 200 percent of poverty would receive coverage tied to the “gold” level, which would have an actuarial value of 80 percent. People between 200 percent and 400 percent of poverty would generally receive the “silver plan,” which would have an actuarial value of 70 percent.

 

The cost-sharing provisions are the same as those in the Senate Finance Committee bill. The amount of cost-sharing assistance provided would be less than under the House bill for all households below 350 percent of the poverty line.

Fuller Analysis of Premium Costs Under New Senate Bill

 

The Finance Committee bill would have capped the amount that households earning between 300 and 400 percent of the poverty level would pay at 12 percent of income. Under the new bill, the maximum these households would pay for premiums would be 9.8 percent of income. In fact, for households with incomes between 300 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line, the affordability provisions in the Senate bill are now stronger than those in the House bill.

 

These changes in the Senate bill also would strengthen the bill’s mandate for people to have insurance, because it would reduce the number of households that would be exempt from the penalty for failing to have insurance. Households would be exempt from the penalty if coverage would cost them more than 8 percent of their income.[3]

 

As noted, the percentage of income that households at the low end of the subsidy scale would pay would be higher than under the Finance Committee bill. Households at 134 percent of the poverty line — the income level at which Medicaid eligibility would end — would pay 4 percent of income for premiums.[4] This is up from 3.7 percent under the Finance Committee bill and represents a large amount for near-poor households, which often struggle to pay rent and utilities and put food on the table.

 

In short, compared to the Finance Committee bill, households with incomes between 154 and 400 percent of the poverty line would pay less for coverage, while households with incomes between 134 and 154 percent of the poverty line would pay more for coverage.

 

Despite some important improvements for millions of households with modest incomes, concerns thus remain regarding the affordability of coverage for families at the bottom of the subsidy scale. For households with incomes of about one and a third times the poverty line who purchase coverage in the exchanges, premiums would be about two and a half times as large as under the House bill. (See Table 1.)

 

For example, a family of three with a household income of $25,000 (or 137 percent of the poverty line) would pay $1,025 per year in premiums under the new Senate bill. Such a family would be covered by Medicaid under the House bill and would not pay premiums. Under the Finance Committee bill, this family would have paid $963.

 

A family of three earning about $32,000 (or 175 percent of the poverty line) would have to pay about $1,738 per year under the new bill. The family would pay about $1,360 under the House bill.

 

 

 

a The initial premium contributions start at 1.5 percent of income at 133 percent of the poverty line, rising to 12 percent of income at 400 percent of the poverty line. The amount of the subsidy would be tied to the cost of the three “Basic” plans with the lowest premiums in the area.

b Households’ premium contributions would range from 2 percent of income at 100 percent of the poverty line to 12 percent of income at 300% of the poverty line and would remain at 9.8 percent for households earning between 300 and 400 percent of the poverty line. The premium subsidy would be tied to the cost of the “silver” plan, which has an actuarial value of 70 percent.

c Households’ premium contributions would range from 2.8 percent of income at 100 percent of the poverty line to 9.8 percent of income at 300 percent of the poverty line and would remain at 9.8 percent for households earning between 300 and 400 percent of the poverty line. A special rule would set the premium contributions for households with incomes above the poverty line up to 133 percent of the poverty line at 2 percent of income. The premium subsidy would be tied to the cost of the silver plan, which has an actuarial value of 70 percent.

d Individuals and families with incomes of less than 150 percent of the poverty line would be covered through Medicaid, which requires very minimal or no premium contributions. Legal residents at this income level who do not qualify for Medicaid would be eligible for premium credits in the exchange.

e Households with incomes of less than 133 percent of the poverty line would be covered through Medicaid. Legal residents at this income level who do not qualify for Medicaid would be eligible for premium credits in the exchanges.

Deductibles and Co-Payments Could Be Substantial

 

The cost-sharing charges that low- and moderate-income households would face would be the same as under the Finance Committee bill and would be higher than under the House bill.

 

The Senate bill would extend cost-sharing assistance to households with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty line that purchase coverage in the exchange. The House bill would provide such assistance to those up to 350 percent of the poverty line. In addition, the cost-sharing assistance that households with incomes below 200 percent of poverty would receive would be significantly smaller under the Senate bill than under the House bill.

 

These differences are reflected in the fact that the insurance plans available in the exchanges would have lower actuarial values under the Senate bill than the House bill, particularly for households with low incomes (see Table 2). As noted, plans with lower actuarial values require beneficiaries to pay a larger share of the costs for the health services the plans cover and hence typically carry higher deductibles and co-payments. (A plan with a 90 percent actuarial value would cover 90 percent of the costs for covered medical services for a typical beneficiary population, with beneficiaries paying the other 10 percent of the costs out of pocket. A plan with a 70 percent actuarial value would cover 70 percent of covered medical costs, with the beneficiary population paying the other 30 percent.)

 

 

For example, under the Senate bill, a family of three earning $32,000 (175 percent of the poverty line) would have coverage under the “gold plan,” which would have an actuarial value of 80 percent. The Congressional Research Service estimates that such an actuarial value is similar to that of a typical employer-sponsored PPO plan, which typically has an annual family deductible of about $700 and cost-sharing of 20 percent for office visits, labs, and other services.[5] The Senate bill would place an annual out-of-pocket cap on how much a family at this income level would have to pay in deductibles and co-payments at $3,867 if the plan were in effect in 2009. [6] In comparison, this family would receive coverage with an actuarial value of 93 percent under the House bill. A plan with such an actuarial value would likely provide coverage with no deductible, co-pays of $20 for office visits and $250 for inpatient hospitalizations, and no cost-sharing for prescribed lab tests or x-rays. The House bill would also limit cost-sharing for a family at that income level to $2,000 per year, assuming the plan were in effect in 2009.

 

Under the Senate bill, families with very modest incomes could encounter challenges if they experience a serious illness or injury. Some families might forgo using various needed health care services because they were stretched to their limits and felt they could not afford the deductibles and co-payments. The Commonwealth Fund defines people as “underinsured” if their out-of-pocket medical expenses (excluding premiums) exceed 10 percent of income for people over 200 percent of the poverty line or exceed 5 percent of income for people below 200 percent of poverty. [7]

 

 

 

All of this from a nice left leaning site: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Edited March 6, 2010 by xr7g428

[Aces]

It is assumed that a lot of people will pay the penalty because it is still cheaper than what it will cost to pay for the insurance.

 

This is VERY complicated. Basically, the lower your income, the better your coverage is. As you income goes up, so does the deductible, and the co-pay. At the poverty level, your insurance covers about 97% of you health care costs, and as your income increases he coverage decreases to 70% of your costs. So if you factor in our total out of pocket expense, you can see that it is going to add up.

 

What Low- and Moderate-income Households Would Pay for Premiums

 

Under the bill, families and individuals with incomes between 133 and 400 percent of the poverty line (between $24,350 and $73,240 for a family of three in 2009) would receive premium credits to help offset the cost of insurance premiums for coverage they purchase in the new health insurance exchanges. The amounts these households would have to pay for premiums would be based on a sliding scale, under which households’ premium contributions would be set at 4 percent of income for households at 134 percent of the poverty line and would rise to 9.8 percent of income for those at 300 percent of the poverty line. The maximum amount that households would be required to pay would remain at 9.8 percent of income for those with incomes between 300 and 400 percent of the poverty line.[1]

 

These premium charges are lower than those that the Senate Finance Committee bill would have set for households between 154 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line. Middle-income households in the 300 percent-to-400 percent-of-poverty range would receive the largest reductions; they would pay a maximum of 9.8 percent of income for coverage under the new bill, as compared to 12 percent of income under the Finance Committee bill. But the premium charges would be higher than under the Finance Committee bill for households at the bottom end of the subsidy range. (See Table 1.)

 

Compared to the premiums under the bill that the House passed November 7, households between about 250 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line would pay less under the new Senate bill. Households with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty line would pay more. Some of those at the bottom of the subsidy scale would pay at least twice the amount they would pay under the House bill.

Cost Sharing Charges

 

Four types of plans would be sold in the exchanges — “bronze,” “silver,” “gold,” and “platinum” plans. Each type of plan would have different levels of cost-sharing (i.e., of deductibles, co-payments, and overall limits on out-of-pocket costs for covered services), expressed in terms of “actuarial value.” The actuarial value of a plan represents the average share of costs for covered health services that the plan would pay for a typical beneficiary population, as distinguished from the share of costs that beneficiaries pay through deductibles and co-payments. Actuarial value provides a way to measure the level of coverage that various insurance plans provide. Generally, plans with higher actuarial values have lower deductibles and co-payments and/or more comprehensive benefits.[2]

 

Under the Senate bill, people with incomes between 100 percent and 150 percent of the poverty line would receive the “platinum” level of coverage, which would have an actuarial value of 90 percent. In other words, it would cover 90 percent of the medical costs of a typical population, with beneficiaries, on average, paying the other 10 percent of costs out of pocket. At that actuarial value, plans would generally have only modest deductibles and co-payments.

 

People with incomes between 150 and 200 percent of poverty would receive coverage tied to the “gold” level, which would have an actuarial value of 80 percent. People between 200 percent and 400 percent of poverty would generally receive the “silver plan,” which would have an actuarial value of 70 percent.

 

The cost-sharing provisions are the same as those in the Senate Finance Committee bill. The amount of cost-sharing assistance provided would be less than under the House bill for all households below 350 percent of the poverty line.

Fuller Analysis of Premium Costs Under New Senate Bill

 

The Finance Committee bill would have capped the amount that households earning between 300 and 400 percent of the poverty level would pay at 12 percent of income. Under the new bill, the maximum these households would pay for premiums would be 9.8 percent of income. In fact, for households with incomes between 300 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line, the affordability provisions in the Senate bill are now stronger than those in the House bill.

 

These changes in the Senate bill also would strengthen the bill’s mandate for people to have insurance, because it would reduce the number of households that would be exempt from the penalty for failing to have insurance. Households would be exempt from the penalty if coverage would cost them more than 8 percent of their income.[3]

 

As noted, the percentage of income that households at the low end of the subsidy scale would pay would be higher than under the Finance Committee bill. Households at 134 percent of the poverty line — the income level at which Medicaid eligibility would end — would pay 4 percent of income for premiums.[4] This is up from 3.7 percent under the Finance Committee bill and represents a large amount for near-poor households, which often struggle to pay rent and utilities and put food on the table.

 

In short, compared to the Finance Committee bill, households with incomes between 154 and 400 percent of the poverty line would pay less for coverage, while households with incomes between 134 and 154 percent of the poverty line would pay more for coverage.

 

Despite some important improvements for millions of households with modest incomes, concerns thus remain regarding the affordability of coverage for families at the bottom of the subsidy scale. For households with incomes of about one and a third times the poverty line who purchase coverage in the exchanges, premiums would be about two and a half times as large as under the House bill. (See Table 1.)

 

For example, a family of three with a household income of $25,000 (or 137 percent of the poverty line) would pay $1,025 per year in premiums under the new Senate bill. Such a family would be covered by Medicaid under the House bill and would not pay premiums. Under the Finance Committee bill, this family would have paid $963.

 

A family of three earning about $32,000 (or 175 percent of the poverty line) would have to pay about $1,738 per year under the new bill. The family would pay about $1,360 under the House bill.

 

 

Nice THEFT of someone else's ideas.

 

If you try to pass off others ideas as yours, with out credit, then we all know that you have no ideas of your own and are just a parrot.

 

To see the original go here.

 

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3004

 

 

You are a THIEF xr7g428

[xr7g428]

Nice THEFT of someone else's ideas.

 

If you try to pass off others ideas as yours, with out credit, then we all know that you have no ideas of your own and are just a parrot.

 

To see the original go here.

 

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3004

 

 

You are a THIEF xr7g428

 

 

First off these are not my ideas. I was trying to figure out how to post the table that follows the part that I posted. I was not done with my post. Are you so offended by the truth that your only response is to call people names?

 

 

If you went back and read a few of the prior posts, you would see that other more thoughtful posters had asked me to provide some clarity to what I had posted earlier. I would bet that neither you nor any one else on the board has ever heard about the bronze silver gold and platinum levels?

 

What is it exactly that has you so upset.

Edited March 6, 2010 by xr7g428

[Furious1Auto]

Nice THEFT of someone else's ideas.

 

If you try to pass off others ideas as yours, with out credit, then we all know that you have no ideas of your own and are just a parrot.

 

To see the original go here.

 

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3004

 

 

You are a THIEF xr7g428

 

 

Are you talking about Nap, or XR? Did you quote the right person?

[xr7g428]

Aces got upset over my post while I was in the process of completing it. He was more interested in making personal attacks than he was in the content of the post.

 

Furious, the funny thing was that I was going to extra trouble to use a site that I thought would be more credible to people like Aces. LOL!

 

Not much in the way of specifics about the bill they are about to approve is being posted, so I thought it would be helpful to actually get some of the details on the board. I could have posted the link, but frankly, no one likes to have to go watch a long video or read those things.

 

Anyway, When I tried to do a cut and paste of the article above, the charts would not format correctly. They showed up as one number per line. I had to do a screen capture, crop the charts to size, and then save them as jpegs, post them on photobucket, and then link them into the post. This was apparently too time consuming for Aces and he got his testicles in a twist.

 

The ironic part is that I really think we need reform, and that this bill has been so compromised that it actually is worse than most of what we have now. I bet you or I could write down what needs to be fixed and agree on it. The problem comes in when all of the special interests get a shot at the thing.

 

I believe it is going to pass. So it would be a good idea to start figuring out what we have allowed the politicians to do to us.

Edited March 6, 2010 by xr7g428

[Aces]

Aces got upset over my post while I was in the process of completing it. He was more interested in making personal attacks than he was in the content of the post.

 

Furious, the funny thing was that I was going to extra trouble to use a site that I thought would be more credible to people like Aces. LOL!

 

Not much in the way of specifics about the bill they are about to approve is being posted, so I thought it would be helpful to actually get some of the details on the board. I could have posted the link, but frankly, no one likes to have to go watch along video or read those things.

 

Anyway, When I tried to do a cut and paste of the article above, the charts would not format correctly. They showed up as one number per line. I had to do a screen capture, crop the charts to size, and then save them as jpegs, post them on photobucket, and then link them into the post. This was apparently too time consuming for Aces and he got his testicles in a twist.

 

 

 

 

Excuses and editing of your post does not excuse the fact that you posted someone else's writing without attribution, claiming it as your own.

 

That is plagiarism and is theft.

 

It shows that your posts have no validity and may be ignored.

[Aces]

Since you are too lazy to research this for yourself, what part specifically do you feel is incorrect?

 

 

No you provided the "facts" so you provide something to back them up........or we assume that you just made them up.

[xr7g428]

Aces,

 

By all means; please do not hesitate to ignore my posts.

[Furious1Auto]

Excuses and editing of your post does not excuse the fact that you posted someone else's writing without attribution, claiming it as your own.

 

That is plagiarism and is theft.

 

It shows that your posts have no validity and may be ignored.

 

 

I don't even care if he copies and pastes all day if the information is correct. However without a copy of the current proposed bill I would have to question all of XR's arguments.

 

If the government did indeed try to impose penalties to the individual, and not the employer, then it is a means of setting an additional rate schedule for those caught without it. Kind of like the imposition of "high risk" rate schedules to people caught driving without auto insurance in states that mandate it.

 

Instead of the subjecting individuals to additional civil, criminal liabilities all this could be avoided by requiring employers to collect the tax revenue. This does not mean that employers are providing anything, just collecting, like they do FICA, FED tax, State tax, city tax, FOC, and all court ordered garnishments. Sorry their is already a system in place, and it is already accomplished for other matters. If what you are saying is true XR, then their motivation is obvious.

 

Same as mandated auto insurance. They no only intend on mandating the purchase of health care insurance through private insurers, But also intend on sending out mailers to verify that people have coverage either through their employer, or on an individual policy basis. Then the people found not to be in compliance, and that cannot provide proof of insurance will be fined and court ordered to pay a penalty, and also subject to provide periodic proof that they have maintained coverage for X amount of time. In response insurers will capitalize on the court order to charge offenders higher premiums based on a the fact that said offender had been discovered not to be in compliance. With auto insurance these people would be considered high risk, I'm sure with health care insurance they would call it something different, however the mechanics would be the same as people court ordered to purchase high risk auto insurance.

 

Enough of using the courts, and the police as a collection agency for the insurance industry. Take it directly from employee compensation, and fund a public service. No penalties to employees, no middle man (insurance companies) and no additional cost to recipients. We need universal healthcare. Once again until I have the oppertunity to read the most current bill, cannot even verify what you are saying as true!

Edited March 6, 2010 by Furious1Auto

[xr7g428]

Furious,

 

This bill is 2016 pages in length.

 

EDIT: Okay, It is so long that it won't let me attach it as a down loadable document.

 

I believe that this link will work. There are three versions of HR3962. This is the latest and the one that they will be forced to approve if they use budget reconciliation rules to obtain passage with 51 votes. This version carries the certification from the Superintendent of Documents as to its authenticity.

 

H.R.3962 Affordable Health Care for America Act (Placed on Calendar in Senate)

 

It is a big download, so be patient unless you have a fast connection.

Edited March 7, 2010 by xr7g428

[xr7g428]

Furious, I get what you mean about having employers collect the premiums, my only comment is that the employer is doing a lot of work for the insurance companies for free, but it is a system that probably could be made to work.

 

I don't think that I am arguing with you about the health care bill. I think it is going to pass. It seems to me that it sure turned into an amazing subsidy for the insurance companies, but I really don't think it is going to do a thing to lower the cost of health care. I hope to be proven wrong.

[fmccap]

Furious, I get what you mean about having employers collect the premiums, my only comment is that the employer is doing a lot of work for the insurance companies for free, but it is a system that probably could be made to work.

 

I don't think that I am arguing with you about the health care bill. I think it is going to pass. It seems to me that it sure turned into an amazing subsidy for the insurance companies, but I really don't think it is going to do a thing to lower the cost of health care. I hope to be proven wrong.

That's my biggest problem with it. They say it's to expensive but what are they proposing that will really lower health care prices?

 

Since they don't have to profit who takes the loss?

 

So how does the gov. get lower rates from the medical facilities? FORCE??? What happens when they don't want to accept the gov. insurance?

 

Once again how is it cheaper??

[Trimdingman]

That's my biggest problem with it. They say it's to expensive but what are they proposing that will really lower health care prices?

 

Competition and de-regulation will reduce prices, not a government monopoly with more regulations.

 

Here is a recent Canadian pay stub; no overtime. Gross pay $1491.60. Income Tax $347.15. CPP $70.50. E.I Premium $25.80. Charity $2.00. Net Pay $1046.15. It gets a lot worse if we work overtime. This is what we are paying for health care that is inferior to Medicaid.

 

In many communities in eastern Canada, there is no health care within thirty miles or more. Even then, it is severely rationed, with scarce Emergency departments open for short hours. Even if they have money, which most do not, they would have to leave the country to get proper care, as it is illegal to pay for health care. Just like in Cuba, the best of the system is promoted, and the warts are hidden.

[Furious1Auto]

Competition and de-regulation will reduce prices, not a government monopoly with more regulations.

 

Here is a recent Canadian pay stub; no overtime. Gross pay $1491.60. Income Tax $347.15. CPP $70.50. E.I Premium $25.80. Charity $2.00. Net Pay $1046.15. It gets a lot worse if we work overtime. This is what we are paying for health care that is inferior to Medicaid.

 

In many communities in eastern Canada, there is no health care within thirty miles or more. Even then, it is severely rationed, with scarce Emergency departments open for short hours. Even if they have money, which most do not, they would have to leave the country to get proper care, as it is illegal to pay for health care. Just like in Cuba, the best of the system is promoted, and the warts are hidden.

 

 

Your out of your mind, deregulation creates corporate monopolies!

[longball]

Check out this article from ABC....the last paragragh is so true

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/03/a-complicated-enemy-obama-seeks-to-vilify-health-insurers-give-them-336-billion-check.html