'Historic' / 'Transformational' Bill

[jjamie12]

I wanted to get a thread up here talking, solely, about the great things that are in this bill, because I'm not sure that I really understand all of the talk about 'Historic' this and 'Transformational' that. Now, I fully admit that I come to this discussion with pre-conceived notions of general 'government-against-ness'.

 

The question posed here (and hopefully answered to some level of satisfaction) is: What is in this bill that is historic and transformational?

 

(With apologies to Magox, who I know did, at least, some of this work and posted it here last week - I couldn't find it in a cursory search)

 

As I understand it, the central themes of this bill are:

 

1) Creates a 'health insurance exchange', so that uninsured folks can go buy health insurance as a group, rather than singly. (Presumably across state lines? Is this a national exchange?)

2) Subsidizes people on a sliding scale so that they are more able to afford the health insurance offered on this exchange.

3) Forces Insurance companies to not allow exclusion for: a)pre-existing conditions b)no lifetime caps c)no dropping people who get sick

4) In order to persuade folks to buy this insurance, there will be a 'penalty' if you do not.

 

As I see it, the bottom line is: Essentially no exclusions allowed from the Insurance companies and 30 million more people will now be able to afford health insurance. Are there any other benefits that I'm missing?

[IDBillzFan]

I wanted to get a thread up here talking, solely, about the great things that are in this bill, because I'm not sure that I really understand all of the talk about 'Historic' this and 'Transformational' that. Now, I fully admit that I come to this discussion with pre-conceived notions of general 'government-against-ness'.

 

The question posed here (and hopefully answered to some level of satisfaction) is: What is in this bill that is historic and transformational?

 

(With apologies to Magox, who I know did, at least, some of this work and posted it here last week - I couldn't find it in a cursory search)

 

As I understand it, the central themes of this bill are:

 

1) Creates a 'health insurance exchange', so that uninsured folks can go buy health insurance as a group, rather than singly. (Presumably across state lines? Is this a national exchange?)

2) Subsidizes people on a sliding scale so that they are more able to afford the health insurance offered on this exchange.

3) Forces Insurance companies to not allow exclusion for: a)pre-existing conditions b)no lifetime caps c)no dropping people who get sick

4) In order to persuade folks to buy this insurance, there will be a 'penalty' if you do not.

 

As I see it, the bottom line is: Essentially no exclusions allowed from the Insurance companies and 30 million more people will now be able to afford health insurance. Are there any other benefits that I'm missing?

There are not a lot of substantive benefits until 2014. The only benefits this year include insurers being unable to drop you, and the $250 check they're sending to seniors in October to help with Medicare.

 

The provisions that keep insurers from denying coverage to children were supposed to take place right away, as was the message early and often, but apparently no one proof-read the bill, so that has to wait until 2014.

 

Other than that, the only things that really happen right away is the government begins collecting taxes and hiring people to put in place the 150+ new government agencies to manage, y'know, whatever is in the bill. Oh, and effective immediately, all student loans are made through the federal government. That has nothing to do with health care, but it allowed the bill to score better at the CBO.

 

If you're really interested in the house of cards, THIS is a great (albeit, long) read. It's obviously slanted right, but virtually no one can argue with any of the article.

[Doc]

That Comrade Castro gave it his ringing endorsement should tell you all you need to know about this bill/law. And Timothy McVeigh did something "historic" and "transformational."

[VABills]

There are not a lot of substantive benefits until 2014. The only benefits this year include insurers being unable to drop you, and the $250 check they're sending to seniors in October to help with Medicare.

 

The provisions that keep insurers from denying coverage to children were supposed to take place right away, as was the message early and often, but apparently no one proof-read the bill, so that has to wait until 2014.

 

Other than that, the only things that really happen right away is the government begins collecting taxes and hiring people to put in place the 150+ new government agencies to manage, y'know, whatever is in the bill. Oh, and effective immediately, all student loans are made through the federal government. That has nothing to do with health care, but it allowed the bill to score better at the CBO.

 

If you're really interested in the house of cards, THIS is a great (albeit, long) read. It's obviously slanted right, but virtually no one can argue with any of the article.

Not sure what you mean on your second paragraph. Yes children can be denied for pre-exsting condition still, but I beleieve if they are on your insurance already, they can stay until 26. Although, I haven't read the details, I suspect it is a lot like the current conditions, that they have to be in school at least 50% of the time.

[IDBillzFan]

Not sure what you mean on your second paragraph. Yes children can be denied for pre-exsting condition still, but I beleieve if they are on your insurance already, they can stay until 26. Although, I haven't read the details, I suspect it is a lot like the current conditions, that they have to be in school at least 50% of the time.

Here's what I meant, but didn't explain correctly: According to the president, if you have an uninsured child with a pre-existing condition, the insurance companies MUST cover them immediately after the signing of the bill. This was supposed to be one of those important immediate benefits to help garner public support for the bill. He, of course, got that wrong, as that part of the bill now does not take place until 2014. This was the part of the bill Thirdbon was discussing in his thread here. The goof was caught and reported by AP here.

 

You are correct in that you can now cover your children on your policy up to the age of 26, and I'm not sure what the conditions are, but I suspect there are simply not enough people out there who will see this benefit to the extent that public opinion will suddenly change about the overall bill.

[Magox]

Here's what I meant, but didn't explain correctly: According to the president, if you have an uninsured child with a pre-existing condition, the insurance companies MUST cover them immediately after the signing of the bill. This was supposed to be one of those important immediate benefits to help garner public support for the bill. He, of course, got that wrong, as that part of the bill now does not take place until 2014. This was the part of the bill Thirdbon was discussing in his thread here. The goof was caught and reported by AP here.

 

You are correct in that you can now cover your children on your policy up to the age of 26, and I'm not sure what the conditions are, but I suspect there are simply not enough people out there who will see this benefit to the extent that public opinion will suddenly change about the overall bill.

Hey LA did you write this post in response to this http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive...es.html?showall ?

 

You mean everyone gets everything, prices go down, quality goes up, and, and, and we get our own unicorn! Awesome!!! Sure, it flies in the face of all rational economic theory but, hey, she said it, it's gotta be true. Does it really pass the smell test to you?

[IDBillzFan]

Hey LA did you write this post in response to this http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive...es.html?showall ?

 

That Valerie Jarrett is something special.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure why she's taking that position. She apparently didn't get the message that if you're a major public corporation that now has to account for billions taken off your books, you better be prepared to prove your case to Henry Waxman. Because as The Daily Caller's headline so aptly implies: There Will Be No Dissent.

 

In letters sent late Saturday night, Representative Henry Waxman called on the chief executive officers of AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Co. to provide evidence to support costs they said will result from the recently passed health-care reform bill. (READ WAXMAN’S SATURDAY NIGHT LETTERS HERE)

 

Waxman has also requested access to the companies’ internal documents, which one committee Republican says is “an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats’ flawed health-care reform legislation.”

 

In the letter to AT&T, Waxman demands the company turn over “any documents, including e-mail messages, sent to or prepared or reviewed by senior company officials related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T.”

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/28/dems-sen.../#ixzz0jVinE47H

 

What a whiny bunch of crybabies this administration is turning into. "Oh, boo-hoo, we realize that our health care plan is going to shove the economy deeper into the schitter, but you don't have to yell it to the world."

[Magox]

 

That Valerie Jarrett is something special.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure why she's taking that position. She apparently didn't get the message that if you're a major public corporation that now has to account for billions taken off your books, you better be prepared to prove your case to Henry Waxman. Because as The Daily Caller's headline so aptly implies: There Will Be No Dissent.

 

 

 

What a whiny bunch of crybabies this administration is turning into. "Oh, boo-hoo, we realize that our health care plan is going to shove the economy deeper into the schitter, but you don't have to yell it to the world."

Unfrickingbelievable

[Alaska Darin]

I wonder what part of the Constitution Waxman is hiding behind for this request?

 

Imagine the hubbub if Republicans did the same thing.

[IDBillzFan]

I wonder what part of the Constitution Waxman is hiding behind for this request?

 

Imagine the hubbub if Republicans did the same thing.

I believe it's the Good and Welfare clause.

[Magox]

read me

 

The Democratic political calculation with ObamaCare is the proverbial boiling frog: Gradually introduce a health-care entitlement by hiding the true costs, hook the middle class on new subsidies until they become unrepealable, but try to delay the adverse consequences and major new tax hikes so voters don't make the connection between their policy and the economic wreckage

 

I mean seriously, isn't this really a part of liberal idealogy? Which is to provide free **** to as many people as possible, through entitlement programs to the point where you structurally win over long term votes. I just found this characterization to be spot on.

[DC Tom]

 

That Valerie Jarrett is something special.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure why she's taking that position. She apparently didn't get the message that if you're a major public corporation that now has to account for billions taken off your books, you better be prepared to prove your case to Henry Waxman. Because as The Daily Caller's headline so aptly implies: There Will Be No Dissent.

 

 

 

What a whiny bunch of crybabies this administration is turning into. "Oh, boo-hoo, we realize that our health care plan is going to shove the economy deeper into the schitter, but you don't have to yell it to the world."

 

 

"In letters sent late Saturday night, Representative Henry Waxman called on the chief executive officers of AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Co. to provide evidence to support costs they said will result from the recently passed health-care reform bill."

 

Uh, yeah, Henry...that would be the financial statements they have to file with the SEC, you !@#$ing dumbass.

[GG]

Uh, yeah, Henry...that would be the financial statements they have to file with the SEC, you !@#$ing dumbass.

 

Which was codified by a law passed by ... Congress, for which I guess Waxman voted for.

[IDBillzFan]

"In letters sent late Saturday night, Representative Henry Waxman called on the chief executive officers of AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Co. to provide evidence to support costs they said will result from the recently passed health-care reform bill."

 

Uh, yeah, Henry...that would be the financial statements they have to file with the SEC, you !@#$ing dumbass.

Part of me wants to believe that Waxman knows this, but that he's being made to take steps like this by the likes of Emmanuel, Obama and maybe Axelrod to fight off these damaging public statements which, I believe, must be made public by these companies. I want to believe Waxman is not that much of a blithering idiot, and that it's more likely that he's standing at the top of the steps on Christmas morning, begging Emmanual and Obama to not make him wear the pink bunny outfit sent to him by his Aunt Nancy from California.

 

But it's hard to tell. So much of what this administration does is damage control via lashing out and throwing around their liberal body weight, and yet if I find out that Waxman is, in fact, this much of a moron, while sad, it won't be surprising.

 

I hope more companies come out this week and continue to shove it up their asses while they take their precious two-week Easter break.

[Magox]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...oWhatsNewsFifth

 

Check out the bottom, there are 8 views from small business owners on the health bill and how they believe it will impact their business.

 

The only two that support it have the lamest, least substantive filled answers out of the eight.

[DC Tom]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...oWhatsNewsFifth

 

Check out the bottom, there are 8 views from small business owners on the health bill and how they believe it will impact their business.

 

The only two that support it have the lamest, least substantive filled answers out of the eight.

 

#4 was spectacular.

[Magox]

#4 was spectacular.

tell me about it

 

It's the ol "we have to do whats morally right" vs. "this makes no !@#$ing sense" argument.

[IDBillzFan]

#4 was spectacular.

#6 echoes what I'm starting to hear from some of my friends who own companies in the 150-300 employee range. Most of them offer a HC cost split with employees in the 75/25 area, but not all employees take advantage of it. So now the understanding is that if the younger employees turn down what their company offers, the company has to pay a penalty on them any way.

 

You can really see how this bill is going to stabilize the economy, lower health care premiums, enhance quality of care and lower the unemployment rate. By November, America is going to LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this bill.

[Joe Miner]

#4 was spectacular.

 

It's like she admits it's not financially sound:

 

"Some entrepreneurs are too concerned with how health reform would impact their bottom lines."

 

But she wants it anyway:

 

"My commitment to public option goes beyond a business decision," she says. "We need to do what's right and make health care available to everyone."

[Magox]

"Some entrepreneurs are too concerned with how health reform would impact their bottom lines."

Seriously, I mean, Seriously! Really?