PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Highlights of health care compromise bill


BigRedChief
03-18-2010, 10:05 PM
Not what I would have chosen but on the other hand doesn't look like the end of the world either.


Washington (CNN) -- Democratic congressional leaders unveiled their long-awaited $940 billion compromise health care plan Thursday, setting the stage for a vote Sunday.
Here are highlights:
New health insurance subsidies would be provided to families of four making up to $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
Health insurance exchanges would be created to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage.
Total out-of-pocket expenses would be limited, and insurance companies would be prevented from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurers would be barred from canceling coverage for sick people, as well as charging higher premiums based on a person's gender or medical history.
Insurers would be required to provide coverage for non-dependent children up to age 26.
The Medicare prescription drug "doughnut hole" would be closed by 2020. Under current law, Medicare stops covering drug costs after a plan and beneficiary have spent more than $2,830 on prescription drugs. It starts paying again after an individual's out-of-pocket expenses exceed $4,550.
A 40 percent tax would be imposed on insurance companies providing "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax would kick in starting in 2018.


The Medicare tax would be imposed on investment income for individuals making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000.
The federal government would assist states by picking up 100 percent of the costs of expanded Medicaid coverage between 2014 and 2016, and 90 percent starting in 2020.
Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016. The plan includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.
Companies with more than 50 employees would be required to pay a fee of $2,000 per worker if the company does not provide coverage and any of that company's workers receives federal health care subsidies. The first 30 workers would be subtracted from the payment calculation.
States could choose whether to ban abortion coverage in plans offered in the health insurance exchanges. Individuals purchasing plans through the exchanges would have to pay for abortion coverage from their own funds. Some socially conservative Democrats have complained that the plan does not do enough to ensure that taxpayer money is not used to fund abortions.
Illegal immigrants would not be allowed to buy health insurance in the health insurance exchanges.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/18/health.compromise.highlights/index.html?hpt=T1

petegz28
03-18-2010, 10:08 PM
Um, this isn't a "compromise bill". Sorry.

BigRedChief
03-18-2010, 10:09 PM
Um, this isn't a "compromise bill". Sorry.not my words.

Taco John
03-18-2010, 10:11 PM
One thing is for sure, if the media pretended at one time to be unbiased, they've dropped every pretense now.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 10:13 PM
Let me ask you BRC, say they cap my out of pocket expenses at $10k. But I run up what would be around $20k in costs. Where does the extra $10k come from?

Another Q, If I have a "cadillac plan" and am already paying more than everyone else for my insurance and I get taxed 40% on that, wouldn't that force me to take a lesser cost plan and in the long run give me lesser care and elimiante projected tax $'s the Fed Gov thinks they will get?

banyon
03-18-2010, 10:20 PM
One thing is for sure, if the media pretended at one time to be unbiased, they've dropped every pretense now.

Hey did you ever figure out why NAFTA wasn't a free trade treaty? (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6597130&highlight=NAFTA#post6597130)

petegz28
03-18-2010, 10:22 PM
This bill will put us back so far it's crazy. There are ways to meanfully reform health care. Too bad they aren't doing it. And what parts they have that would do it get offset by 3 other things that wouldn't

fan4ever
03-18-2010, 11:27 PM
One thing is for sure, if the media pretended at one time to be unbiased, they've dropped every pretense now.

I'm not sure the media even realizes anymore that they are supposed to be unbiased...

Taco John
03-18-2010, 11:35 PM
Hey did you ever figure out why NAFTA wasn't a free trade treaty? (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6597130&highlight=NAFTA#post6597130)

Yeah. I've never had any trouble with this.

It's a managed trade treaty aimed at helping the biggest businesses move their work forces over seas but still ship their products back to America without penalty for doing it. True free trade doesn't focus on favored nations and doesn't actually even require a treaty that manages the "free" trade.

Why have you decided to troll this thread and post off topic?

BigRedChief
03-19-2010, 07:19 AM
Here's a breakdown of some of the ways the latest health reform bill would be paid for and where the legislation differs notably from the Senate bill.
Where the money will come from
Increase the Medicare tax on high-income households: The reconciliation bill's changes to the Medicare tax represent the largest single revenue raiser in the health reform package.
The CBO estimates the provision would raise $210 billion over 10 years.

Currently, the Medicare payroll tax is 2.9% on all wages -- with the worker and his employer each paying 1.45%.

The reconciliation bill, like the Senate bill, would raise the percentage paid by high-income individuals by 0.9 percentage points, so an individual would pay 2.35% on his wages.
The reconciliation bill, however, also would subject the investment income of high-income households, such as dividends, interest and rent, to a 3.8% Medicare tax.

<!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- /REAP -->High-income is defined as individuals making more than $200,000 ($250,000 for couples filing jointly).

The tax would be on the lesser of one's investment income or the amount of modified adjusted gross income above the income threshold.

In other words, if a couple's total income is $300,000 ($50,000 above the threshold), and they had $40,000 in investment income, the 3.8% tax would apply to the $40,000. If their investment income was $60,000, however, they would only pay the tax on $50,000.
<!-- REAP --><!--startclickprintexclude--><!-- KEEP --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript _extended="true">vidConfig.push({videoArray: ["/video/fortune/2010/02/17/f_cs_healty_lifestyle.fortune.json","/video/fortune/2010/02/17/f_cs_health_care.fortune.json"], collapsed:false});</SCRIPT><!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- /REAP -->
Tax high-cost medical plans: The new bill still includes an excise tax on insurers offering high-cost health insurance policies.

But it is considerably weakened from the Senate bill, after objections from unions and others. Fiscal hawks have been arguing for a stronger excise tax since they believe it has the best chance of curbing the growth in health costs, which is a main goal of health reform.
The idea is that an excise tax would persuade workers and employers to choose lower-cost plans. While technically a tax on insurers, they are expected to pass along those costs to policyholders.

Once employers spend less money on health care, they will use the money saved to pay workers higher wages, or so the economic theory goes. The workers will then owe income tax on those higher wages, providing revenue to help pay for health reform.

But the new bill, compared to the Senate bill, raises the thresholds for plans that would be subject to the tax and delays its enactment by five years -- from 2013 to 2018.

The new thresholds would be $10,200 for singles, up from $8,500 in the Senate bill; and to $27,500 for families, up from $23,000 in the Senate bill. The thresholds would be higher still for retirees and employees in high-risk professions ($11,850 for individuals and $30,950 for families).

Those thresholds could go up even more by 2018 if health care inflation is higher than expected.
The CBO estimates the provision would raise $32 billion over 10 years, nearly 80% less than the $149 billion in the Senate bill.

Penalties for those who don't get coverage: Like the Senate bill, the reconciliation bill would impose a financial penalty on most Americans who don't buy health insurance.
Come 2015, individuals who choose not to buy insurance would pay the greater of $325 or up to 2% in income ($695 or up to 2.5% in income thereafter).

Those whose incomes are low enough that they are not required to file a tax return would be exempt from this requirement.
The CBO estimates this provision would raise $17 billion over 10 years.

Require employers to pay if they don't provide coverage: Like the Senate bill, the reconciliation bill would assess a penalty on employers with more than 50 workers if they do not provide health insurance coverage and have workers who would qualify for federal subsidies to buy insurance on their own. But the reconciliation bill ups the penalty from $750 per full-time worker to $2,000.

During an initial transition period, however, companies would only have to pay penalties on some of their employees.
The CBO estimates this provision would raise $52 billion over 10 years.

Impose new fees on the health industry: The reconciliation bill would impose new fees on health care companies such as drug makers, medical device makers and insurers. The fees would be in exchange for the new business that will come their way as a result of the expected influx of Americans who will obtain health coverage and use more medical services.
The CBO estimates this provision would raise $107 billion over 10 years.

Trim various health-related tax breaks: The reconciliation bill would impose an additional 20% penalty for non-health withdrawals from tax-advantaged health savings accounts, up from 10% in the Senate bill.

It would limit to $2,500 the amount workers may contribute to flexible health spending accounts at work. It would also increase how much the non-elderly and the non-disabled would have to rack up in medical bills before being allowed to deduct expenses above that amount on their federal income tax return.

Plus, it would make it harder to deduct medical expenses by raising the percentage of adjusted gross income that would have to be matched in health bills before being allowed to deduct any further medical expenses. The floor would be raised to 10% from 7.5% for those under 65.
These provisions combined would bring in an estimated $29 billion over 10 years.

Create a new long-term care insurance program: The bill would create the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act to help seniors in need of help with daily tasks such as bathing and dressing. Those who enroll in the program would have to pay premiums into the program for five years before being eligible for benefits.

In the first 10 years, the program it is expected to take in more money than it pays out, which is why the CBO says it would reduce the deficit by $70 billion. But in the second decade and beyond, the program is projected to pay out more than it takes in, and will therefore contribute to the deficit.

That's why some say that the CLASS Act is a budget gimmick that will not contribute to the potential of health reform to reduce the deficit.
Not yet the end

The reconciliation bill could come up for a vote in the House as early as Sunday.

It may not be amended in the House before the vote. But it may be amended in the Senate. And if Senate Republicans have their way, there will be plenty of proposed changes.
Whether those amendments pass or not, however, is another matter.
- CNN's Lisa Desjardins contributed to this report. http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/images/bug.gif (http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/economy/cbo_reconciliation/index.htm?hpt=T1#TOP)
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/economy/cbo_reconciliation/index.htm?hpt=T1
<!-- /CONTENT -->

mlyonsd
03-19-2010, 08:08 AM
Separate Medicare tax on investment income?

Where will the money come from during recessions and bear markets?

F'ing brilliant. Seriously, these people are insane. Waterboarding is way to good for them.

banyon
03-19-2010, 08:20 AM
Yeah. I've never had any trouble with this.

It's a managed trade treaty aimed at helping the biggest businesses move their work forces over seas but still ship their products back to America without penalty for doing it. True free trade doesn't focus on favored nations and doesn't actually even require a treaty that manages the "free" trade.

Why have you decided to troll this thread and post off topic?

On the contrary, you have serious trouble with this because you make these convenient generalizations that bear no resemblance to what's actually contained in the treaty. NAFTA doesn't contain any provisions favoring certain nations over others, in fact the language in the treaty states precisely the opposite that nations can't be favored. Also, there are no provisions favoring big business, nor any regime for "management" of trade.

So, other than you know what the acronym of the treaty name stands for, you're pretty much 100% backwards on it, and you just take lewrockwellmisesnetdaily's word for it. While you're just making up vague claims, why not also state that it contains death panels? I mean, it's not like we're going to bother to actually check the treaty to see if it's there, right?


But, yeah, I probably shouldn't have trolled this thread for it. If you want to reply, the other thread would be better.

BigRedChief
03-19-2010, 08:24 AM
Separate Medicare tax on investment income?Where will the money come from during recessions and bear markets?

F'ing brilliant. Seriously, these people are insane. Waterboarding is way to good for them.sorry but I can't get worked up that its going to hurt the economy or become a hardship on the well to do in this country. A 0.9% increase in an investment tax on those already making lots of money in this economy? Not feeling their pain here.

In other words, if a couple's total income is $300,000 ($50,000 above the threshold), and they had $40,000 in investment income, the 3.8% tax would apply to the $40,000. If their investment income was $60,000, however, they would only pay the tax on $50,000.

Hydrae
03-19-2010, 08:55 AM
Once employers spend less money on health care, they will use the money saved to pay workers higher wages, or so the economic theory goes. The workers will then owe income tax on those higher wages, providing revenue to help pay for health reform.


ROFL ROFL ROFL

mlyonsd
03-19-2010, 08:56 AM
sorry but I can't get worked up that its going to hurt the economy or become a hardship on the well to do in this country. A 0.9% increase in an investment tax on those already making lots of money in this economy? Not feeling their pain here.

In other words, if a couple's total income is $300,000 ($50,000 above the threshold), and they had $40,000 in investment income, the 3.8% tax would apply to the $40,000. If their investment income was $60,000, however, they would only pay the tax on $50,000.

Yeah I already know you don't have a problem deciding you have a right to someone else's income. Was that taught to you by your parents or did you come by that on your own?

My point was though part of how this idiotic plan is paid for is quite frankly based on income that is fluid and not always there.

That makes the CBO estimate a joke.

Dayze
03-19-2010, 09:01 AM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

exactly.

petegz28
03-19-2010, 10:03 AM
2 more vote switches...

D-Foichio (sp?) switched from N to Y
D-Lupinsky switched from Y to N

Dottefan
03-19-2010, 11:00 AM
I bet from 2007 back you assholes didnt have any complaints , while Bush ran this country into the ground. I wonder why now all you repukes are so fired up? I wonder what must of happend ? I mean did you sleep through Bush taking our balanced budget and sinking us in debt. Did you miss the time that he lied about WMD`s? Did you not know that Bush was a socialist? I mean he did take over the banks and bail them out? ...but now your mad? Now you want to bitch, moan and complain? lol...silly republicans.

Hydrae
03-19-2010, 11:02 AM
I bet from 2007 back you assholes didnt have any complaints , while Bush ran this country into the ground. I wonder why now all you repukes are so fired up? I wonder what must of happend ? I mean did you sleep through Bush taking our balanced budget and sinking us in debt. Did you miss the time that he lied about WMD`s? Did you not know that Bush was a socialist? I mean he did take over the banks and bail them out? ...but now your mad? Now you want to bitch, moan and complain? lol...silly republicans.

I love how this argument is put in terms of simply Rep vs Dem. There are many of us who did not appreciate much of what Bush did either. As a person who would like to see about 75% of the federal government reduced, your complaint has no bearing.


Carry on with pointing fingers.

petegz28
03-19-2010, 11:28 AM
I love how this argument is put in terms of simply Rep vs Dem. There are many of us who did not appreciate much of what Bush did either. As a person who would like to see about 75% of the federal government reduced, your complaint has no bearing.


Carry on with pointing fingers.

I voted for Bush twice and will say he fucked up. The Repubs even more so. I even said the Repubs deserved to get their ass kicked on 06. Dottefan is a doucheknuckle.

BigRedChief
03-19-2010, 11:21 PM
That makes the CBO estimate a joke.I thought the CBO was a non partisan, unbiased orgainzartion trusted by Congress to deliver real numbers, not "joke"/partisan numbers?

mlyonsd
03-20-2010, 07:53 AM
I thought the CBO was a non partisan, unbiased orgainzartion trusted by Congress to deliver real numbers, not "joke"/partisan numbers?

It is when they estimate 10-20 year ranges.

Part of this bill is paid for by investment income. Tell me, honestly, how they predict that.

Before you say they can please link me to someplace on their website when they predict all recessions in that time frame, when the markets will dive, for how long, and when they will recover.

I'd also like to see their unemployment predictions that will also change this estimate.

It's a flipping joke. I understand the dems parroting their findings but it is really a dishonest thing to do when you're talking about something like this bill.

BigRedChief
03-20-2010, 08:28 AM
It is when they estimate 10-20 year ranges.

Part of this bill is paid for by investment income. Tell me, honestly, how they predict that.

Before you say they can please link me to someplace on their website when they predict all recessions in that time frame, when the markets will dive, for how long, and when they will recover.

I'd also like to see their unemployment predictions that will also change this estimate.

It's a flipping joke. I understand the dems parroting their findings but it is really a dishonest thing to do when you're talking about something like this bill.I have no idea? I always thought the CBO was above politics and the numbers were above reproach. That Dems and Republicans accepted them as facts?

patteeu
03-20-2010, 08:35 AM
BRC warming up to ObamaCare. Shocker.

BigRedChief
03-20-2010, 08:42 AM
BRC warming up to ObamaCare. Shocker.I was against a new government run health care program. This isn't a government run health care program. You will still buy insurance and the insurance company will run the program.
It's not what I wanted to see, the "good stuff" needs to kick in sooner and the insurance companies get away with too much BS still....It's better than what we have now.

The only thing I hate about it is forcing people to buy mandatory insurance. Its for their own good but so is quit smoking, drinking too much etc . It's a path I'd rather not see the government go down.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 08:52 AM
I bet from 2007 back you assholes didnt have any complaints , while Bush ran this country into the ground. I wonder why now all you repukes are so fired up? I wonder what must of happend ? I mean did you sleep through Bush taking our balanced budget and sinking us in debt. Did you miss the time that he lied about WMD`s? Did you not know that Bush was a socialist? I mean he did take over the banks and bail them out? ...but now your mad? Now you want to bitch, moan and complain? lol...silly republicans.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NEpMkqc0Fd0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NEpMkqc0Fd0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

patteeu
03-20-2010, 09:01 AM
I have no idea? I always thought the CBO was above politics and the numbers were above reproach. That Dems and Republicans accepted them as facts?

No economic forecasts are ever above reproach. While the CBO isn't as partisan as most executive branch OMBs, it's drawn criticism for non-partisan biases before (e.g. static scoring of tax cuts versus dynamic scoring).

And most importantly, they only score what is put in front of them and you can bet there is partisan bias involved in that. Take, for example, the decision of democrat leaders to strip out some of the deficit busting provisions that were in the health care bill and deal with them seperately to avoid receiving a negative CBO score on the main bill. No one believes that there is any chance that Congress won't pass the so-called "doc fix", but it was removed from the health care bill to give the appearance of reducing the deficit. HonestChieffan has a thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=225189) on a score request that comes from Paul Ryan pulling some of those hidden costs back into the picture.

mlyonsd
03-20-2010, 12:22 PM
I have no idea?

Bingo. In one short concise sentence you've nailed your's and the CBO's estimate right on the head.