Happy Atheist Forum

This is a flamewar containment thread.

Flame away. (Discuss)

Also if someone could explain to me why I keep hearing that it has to go back to the Senate but at the same time I keep hearing that it's going straight to Obama's desk I would appreciate it. I gave up googling it after 5 minutes because I want to go watch The Pacific Part II.

edit: regarding my question above: i think i figured it out.  the main portion of the bill that originated in the senate got passed and is on it's way to obama. a smaller portion that includes "fixes" that the dems want and came up with in the house was passed, but needs to be passed by the senate as well since it originated in the house. that right?

Kang: Abortions for all.
[crowd boos]
Kang: Very well, no abortions for anyone.
[crowd boos]
Kang: Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
[crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]

Quote from: "theTwiz"Also if someone could explain to me why I keep hearing that it has to go back to the Senate but at the same time I keep hearing that it's going straight to Obama's desk I would appreciate it. I gave up googling it after 5 minutes because I want to go watch The Pacific Part II.

edit: regarding my question above: i think i figured it out.  the main portion of the bill that originated in the senate got passed and is on it's way to obama. a smaller portion that includes "fixes" that the dems want and came up with in the house was passed, but needs to be passed by the senate as well since it originated in the house. that right?

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/obama-to-sign-health-care-bill-tuesday/

I live in a college town and work for the university so I hear polarized arguments about this all the time. The college-educated administrative staff, faculty and liberal students support the bill, citing health as a basic human right that shouldn't be governed by for-profit insurance companies. The blue-collar classified staff, unionized workers, conservative students and locals complain, calling Dems hypocrites for "pushing" the bill through while condemning the Bush administration for doing the same thing and are afraid that it's just another bill they'll have to pay when they're already stretched thin as it is.

Here's a breakdown of what will happen between tomorrow and 2018 (from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7495825/US-health-care-reform-bill-the-facts.html:

[spoiler:2h49pamx]The legislation aims to extend coverage to 32 million uninsured people.

Here is what to expect if the Senate passes the House's changes and President Barack Obama signs the entire package into law:

Within the first year:

* Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.

* Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

* Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.

* Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.

* A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.

* Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.

* A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

* A 10 per cent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

In 2011:

* Medicare provides 10 per cent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.

* Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.

* A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.

* Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.

* Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 IRS forms.

* An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies based on market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.

In 2012:

* Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.

* An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.

* The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.

In 2013:

* A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.

* The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 per cent from 7.5 per cent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 per cent for the elderly through 2016.

* The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 per cent from 1.45 per cent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income at a rate of 3.8 per cent for that income group.

* A 2.9 per cent excise tax is imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.

In 2014:

* State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.

* Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don't. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 per cent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.

* Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

* Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.

* Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.

In 2015:

* Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.

In 2018:

* An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions.[/spoiler:2h49pamx]

you know...if they had just called it "Medicare for All" to begin with rather than "public option" a lot of this fuss and confusion could have probably been avoided.

That said, it all got so confusing that I gave up on trying to keep track of what was and was not still in the bill and really have no clue if it will be helpful or not at this point.

my thought is that a bill that is longer that the bible cannot possibly be good. Not to mention the fact that the bill has lots of technical jargon that changes things from others bill which probably refer to others which refer to others etc....

It's a start. Sure, it's not single-payer... shoot, it doesn't even have the public option... but it's at least something. Our goal now should be a public option by 2014 that way mandated coverage won't force everyone into private, high risk pools.

Quote from: "Will"Our goal now should be a public option by 2014 that way mandated coverage won't force everyone into private, high risk pools.

so...um, what does this new bill do for those of us who don't have insurance because it is too freakin expensive?

If you can't afford it they give it to you... don't they?

And I shamefully report my state is one of the fourteen filing a lawsuit. Does anybody think they actually have a chance at overturning a law made by Congress?

14 states sue to block health care law (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/23/health.care.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1)

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Will"Our goal now should be a public option by 2014 that way mandated coverage won't force everyone into private, high risk pools.

so...um, what does this new bill do for those of us who don't have insurance because it is too freakin expensive?

It's going to force you to buy it in 2014. We have a few years to push for a (cheaper) public option between now and then.

Quote from: "MSN"An insurance-free person would have to pony up whichever is greater: $695 annually for each uninsured family member -- up to a maximum of $2,085 -- or 2.5% of household income.

There are exceptions. Certain people with religious objections would not have to get health insurance, nor would American Indians, illegal immigrants or people in prison.

Religious objections? Would if you're an atheist whose personal philosophy has an objection? Doesn't this go against the Establishment clause? It is a special privelage. I'm curious though... what qualifies as a religious objection in this case? Assuming it must be more than you're just a religious person who doesn't want it.

By the way, we could use a whole thread as a rubbish bin on the myths of Health Care. Some of them are just plain crazy (http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?s=c7a9bffdae661e5ba58cb244e5858824&showtopic=35619).

Quote from: "Whitney"you know...if they had just called it "Medicare for All" to begin with rather than "public option" a lot of this fuss and confusion could have probably been avoided.

That said, it all got so confusing that I gave up on trying to keep track of what was and was not still in the bill and really have no clue if it will be helpful or not at this point.

that is my stance as well. i have no idea and i am LOST  

I have serious reservations about this bill. Massachusetts a few years ago did everything that is in this federal bill and more. Premiums have soared faster than any other state because we have to buy it and do not have a choice. Not to mention that lower income folks that I work with get hit with constant fines for not buying insurance which only further puts them in the red.

As for the public option helping, well that has not worked. We have the public option here and it has done nothing to lower premiums and has created a class of upper middle class doctors that get paid regardless of performance which has screwed over the lower income yet again.

This bill is a massive Corporate Welfare scheme to get the workers at insurance companies to vote for them. Screw the Democrats, screw the Republicans. We need multi member districts with single transferable votes like they do in Ireland for their lower house and what Australia does for their Senate.

Quote from: "Moses"I have serious reservations about this bill.

agreed and for the same reasons.

So where do I sign up to serve on one of the Death Panels?

Quote from: "theTwiz"So where do I sign up to serve on one of the Death Panels?

I've been watching Craigslist, but it looks like they're not hiring yet.  Yet.

The part requiring everyone to have health care has been struck down as unconstitutional (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/13/health-care-lawsuit-ruling_n_795807.html). Will most likely be on its way to the Supreme Court. Thoughts?

Quote from: "Sophus"The part requiring everyone to have health care has been struck down as unconstitutional (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/13/health-care-lawsuit-ruling_n_795807.html). Will most likely be on its way to the Supreme Court. Thoughts?

Forcing people to get insurance was one aspect of the legislation the insurance companies probably liked.  Take that component out, and the insurance companies will likely react in a highly negative way, and politicians will take heed.

Should be an interesting show.

I'm guessing that if they allow people to opt-out for religious reasons we'll see a marked increase in whatever religions don't allow modern medicine, at least on paper.

Quote from: "DJAkuma"I'm guessing that if they allow people to opt-out for religious reasons we'll see a marked increase in whatever religions don't allow modern medicine, at least on paper.

I have to admit it's incredibly stupid to let someone opt-out for religious reasons but not as an act of "free expression".

Quote from: "DJAkuma"I'm guessing that if they allow people to opt-out for religious reasons we'll see a marked increase in whatever religions don't allow modern medicine, at least on paper.

Perhaps it will be deemed relevant that in states where property or other state taxes are used primarily to fund the primary and secondary schools, adults with no children are still required to pay these taxes as a civic duty.  For one thing, just as an adult could decide later in life to have children, so too could an adult decide later in life to change religions, or drop religion entirely.  For another, just as the adult was once a child, and had recourse to the primary and secondary schools for personal use, so too could the adult's parents have had recourse to medical benefits, and it isn't a given that the adult's parents are the same religion as the adult.

A political cartoonist's take on this:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tampabay.com%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F00154%2Fwednesdaycartoonpri_154105c.jpg&hash=c0a723abbaa7919f9796f600f699e0ce4890c8b8)

Sophus wrote:

QuoteThe part requiring everyone to have health care has been struck down as unconstitutional. Will most likely be on its way to the Supreme Court. Thoughts?

I'm making an guess that the Supreme court is going to overturn this ruling.  The federal court ruled it unconstitutional saying that a mandate goes beyond the scope of the federal government, but the way this thing is set up, it isn't exactly a mandate to buy insurance, it's an IRS tax break if you have it.  So since the federal government has the power to collect taxes through the IRS, they do have the power to do this and give those without insurance a big kick in the butt at tax time. Hopefully I'm wrong.

The only thing that gives me a wee bit o' hope is that Kathleen Sebellius is heading this mess.  I lived in Kansas when she help start the Kansas Healthwave program for kids.  It's a SCHIP program but the difference was that higher income people could buy into it, so it gave an option to people who couldn't afford costly private care but didn't qualify for medicaid for their kids.  And as far as I know Kansas is still doing okay economically so it's not like the program is bankrupting anyone.

The second possible brightness in this morass is that the Dems are trying to change the poverty levels.  Because the new healthcare law has ways for people to buy into exchanges based on income as a percentage of the poverty line, this would affect who can buy in to get healthcare from the government. (I actually skimmed through that 1000+ page clusterfuck to find the tables on this)

Not sure how adjusting the poverty line would affect other government programs, however.  And who knows if they will change it.  And if they don't a good percentage of America will be in significant financial pain.

But, all in all, I think looking at the way Social Security has been run in the past, it really doesn't matter how beneficient the current administrations actions on Healthcare will to be be.  All it will take is another tax-cut-oilwar-party-time administration to drain the coffers.  Just look at recent history.