Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

CBS News offers a list of what's in the health care bill passed in the House Saturday night, which includes a a public health insurance option, a a national exchange for the uninsured and small businesses and a mandates for individuals and businesses to purchase insurance.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Menthol cigarettes are now a cure for sexual dysfunction.

Mandatory jailtime and massive fines for all dissenters. Barack Hussein Uber Alles!

--Doc Goebbels

The Government takeover of AETNA and others is right around the corner.

Too-Big-To-Fail, insurance companies will go bankrupt in a few short years and the U.S. Government will bail them out with ownership.


#2 | Posted by cookfish | Flag: He Can't Help It...He's Obsessssssed

How in hell anyone working and not on welfare can can like this plan is wayyyyyy beyond me.


"On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer."


" Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later."

More....


" Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choicebasic, enhanced and premium levelsbut the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less."

Insurance companies are prohibited from denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. There are caps on deductibles and annual out of pocket spending is capped at $5000.

There goes the HDHP I have. The one that is inexpensive enough for my employer to deposit 3k a year into my HSA. So that free first 3k of medical expenses I count on is gone. Now my employer will have to switch me to a noraml health plan so I will have to pay the deductible which I will meet every year. So instead of being able to ration my health care to have no out of pocket expenses I will have 2k a year in out of pocket expenses.

THANKS DEMS!

AARP is looking out for seniors by endorsing the bill...SURE they are...gotta wonder how much taxpayer money THEY will be raking in???


"In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."

A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.

Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.

Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."

Oh, well...at least ACORN and the other "community organizer" groups will be well compensated.


"While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability."

Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."

These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.

Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.

Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."

"Flag: He Can't Help It...He's Obsessssssed

#4 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis"


Hmmmm...methinks the obsessed one here is the author of post #4. Whassamatta, Doc, can't find a Palin thread today?

Well, I'll be going to jail, it looks like. The medical insurance I (finally) signed up for at work isn't going to qualify, and I can't afford the taxes, the fines, or a different plan. So I'm going to be in jail.

"Well, I'll be going to jail, it looks like."

You'll probably have a lot of company. If it goes like I think it will, they're gonna have to build a LOT of new jails.

Would you like to attribute your quotes, JGA?

Or should we just refer to Boehner's out of context fear mongering he did for 5 minutes last night?

Just got a rate quote from BCBS 260 a month for a plan that qualifies (bassed on what we know now) granted I don't know what it might be missing but I can't see that it will jump that much and that plan is only 3120 a year, a far cry from 15k.

Not really a surprise, Tao. The Republicans have lied, non-stop about everything, from the beginning.

Yav,

Here you go...
online.wsj.com

Insurance companies are prohibited from denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. There are caps on deductibles and annual out of pocket spending is capped at $5000.

There goes the HDHP I have. The one that is inexpensive enough for my employer to deposit 3k a year into my HSA. So that free first 3k of medical expenses I count on is gone. Now my employer will have to switch me to a noraml health plan so I will have to pay the deductible which I will meet every year. So instead of being able to ration my health care to have no out of pocket expenses I will have 2k a year in out of pocket expenses.

THANKS DEMS!

#7 | Posted by TaoWarrior

whatever..you have MS and think that just because you have a "free" 3k from your employer that the cost of your insurance isn't higher? In less than 10 years you won't even have insurance (due to cost) at the current rate then you will really be whining about costs.

Andreas, I already know who put it out, where it appeared, etc. I wondered if JGA would follow basic principles, or even if he knew the source.

It's is the same Betsy McCaughey that started the "death panels" meme, It's no surprise she'd be front and center with more right wing propaganda.

Why people take completely made up garbage from McCaughey that's been completely discredited as 'fact' is beyond me.

Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

Of course. How else could Obama have gotten the Chipotle Caucus to vote for this? Jesus H. Christ!

Well, I'll be going to jail, it looks like. The medical insurance I (finally) signed up for at work isn't going to qualify, and I can't afford the taxes, the fines, or a different plan. So I'm going to be in jail.
#11 | Posted by LetUsReason

And I'm sure you'll be refusing the free health services you'd get in jail on principle, right?

I could see the premium rising to 5300 what with the extra cost of having to cover everyone. So that I do find belivable.

A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total

Well thats a lie since the law limits out of pocket to 5k it couldn't be 5300. And where is the magic 15000 premium coming from? I skimed the bill last night and saw nothing about it. Since the final standards have not even been writen yet I don't see how they could even begin to claim a dollar ammount for the plan.

However none of that changes the point that I will have to change insurance plans and my out of pocket will increase at least 2k because of it. Now I might qualify for some tax credits but I don't want more tax credits I want the insurance I had. Maybe if the tax credits add up to 2k it won't be so bad at least then I won't be out the money myself. However why does anyone have to be out the money when I was doing fine before?

whatever..you have MS and think that just because you have a "free" 3k from your employer that the cost of your insurance isn't higher? In less than 10 years you won't even have insurance (due to cost) at the current rate then you will really be whining about costs.

In 10 years, baring medical advances, I will be unable to work and on disability and have access to medicare.

Good try though. In the meantime my limited funds will be strained even more thanks to this.

"There goes the HDHP I have."

Presently there is no cap on out of pocket expenses and soon there will be one. Well, all the free marketeers tell us competition is there to make insurance companies offer us the best deal. What has changed about that with a cap??? Nothing, they are still free to offer plans with lower out of pocket expenses this bill doesn't prohibit anyone from offering plans as good or better than what you have right now. All of the scare tactics pretend that the maximum allowable limits will necessarily be what is offered and with increased competition that will not necessarily be true.

"Good try though. In the meantime my limited funds will be strained even more thanks to this."

That is not necessarily or even probably true but what is though is that if you were offered Medicare right now it would be better for you and it would be better for America if everyone were. So, don't blame those who are creating the best plan they can get passed in a divided Congress, blame those who stand in the way and obstruct any attempt to bring you and the rest of us what we all really know would be cheaper and better; Medicare for Everyone. Clue here, it isn't liberals who are preventing it.

What's to keep an employer from dropping their converage and their contribution to their employee's plans? Is there anything to force an employer to increase the salaries equal to the amount they pay towards insurance?

Does this amount to a gift to employers and insurance companies and a burden to the individual employee?

Danni

Thats my point, I have High Deductable Health Plan which exedes the allowed caps. The HDHP is WAY cheaper than standard insurance so much so that my company gives me the savings to use towards medical expenses. So I get my first 3k in medical expenses totaly free. Then if I can't keep cost down I have to pay the next 2k. However I have a very strong motivator to keep those cost down so I don't excede the ammount the company gives me.

That is all over though in 18 months I will have to have a standard health plan. Which will cost more so the company will not be able to give me 3k so I will have to pay out of pocket money that I did not previously have to pay.

Hag,

What's to keep an employer from dropping their converage and their contribution to their employee's plans? Is there anything to force an employer to increase the salaries equal to the amount they pay towards insurance?

Companies with payroll over 500k will have to offer insurance or face fines. Smaller than it then no the employee will be on their own.

Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

So how do we become illegal immigrants?


And we are going to go to jail--

republicans.waysandmeans.house
.gov

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain "acceptable health insurance coverage" and who choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: "This is the ultimate example of the Democrats' command-and-control style of governing buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately."


"Companies with payroll over 500k will have to offer insurance or face fines."
#28 | Posted by TaoWarrior

Will the amount of those fines be more than the cost of insuring the company's employees?

"Smaller than it then no the employee will be on their own."
#28 | Posted by TaoWarrior

Are we sculpting and polishing a turd to look like an apple?

Hag,

I'm just repeating the bill which I was against since it was making laws but not spelling out what those laws would entail.

There are tax credits to help those employees that will not get insurance through their jobs and a public opton.

My question is are the fines more than the cost of insurance or not?

"and who choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years."

Refuse to pay your income tax Murphy and see where it lands you. Nothing new about the fact that if you refuse to pay your taxes you risk jail.

The righties are out with the talking points, I haven't read one thought by any of them that was original or not a distortion of the truth.

Hagbard, re 21: Yes.

#8-sec.1114(pp.391-393)
replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.-----there you have it, folks, the death squads.

there you have it, folks, the death squads.

#34 | Posted by matsop at 2009-11-08 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag: doesn't understand what hospice is.

Kinda weird though. Aside from to visits to the dentist in the last two years, I haven't needed to see a doctor about anything in... what, fifteen years? Aside from the fact that my diet is terrible and I'm likely killing myself anyway.

But yes, I would refuse treatment if I can't pay for it on my own dime. That's always been my stance. And before anyone asks, yes, that includes treatments for life-threatening situations. Put bluntly, I don't see it happening any time soon (despite my terrible habits), and if it does, I will have to suck it up and live with it or let it kill me. Those are really my only choices.

"I would refuse treatment if I can't pay for it on my own dime. That's always been my stance. And before anyone asks, yes, that includes treatments for life-threatening situations."

If you want to be an idiot fine but don't expect respect for it. If you have anyone depending on your for anything, and most of us do, that is a pretty selfish attitude to take.
Personally, I have a grown family but they still need me around sometimes, if I had to I would accept, even seek out, whatever care I needed whether or not I can actually pay for it. Seems to me, in a country like America, we'd want it to be available like it is in all other modern indistrialized nations.

"Why people take completely made up garbage from McCaughey that's been completely discredited as 'fact' is beyond me."

Well, YAV, Since I'm sure you know PRECISELY what is in the following sections and EXACTLY how McCaughey is lying about them, would you PLEASE fill us in on the REAL truth. Now, Obama doesn't KNOW what's in the bill and Pelosi and Reid are CONFIRMED liars so don't just quote them, OK? Don't just do a one liner and say , "not true." Oh, and remember that it isn't even FINISHED yet...there are HOW many amendments , 800 or so, that haven't even been addressed. However, I'm SURE you know what they are. Address THESE items here and disprove what is posted above for a start, OK?...fool

Sec. 202 (p. 91-92)
Sec. 224 (p. 118)
Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168)
Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299)
Sec. 412 (p. 272)
Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692)
Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393)
Sec. 222 (p. 617)
Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437)

How about it, YAV? Straighten EVERYONE out about how this bill is the best thing to come down the pike since sliced bread.

Danni re 37, and specifically "If you have anyone depending on your for anything":

I do not.

It's been mentioned repeatedly, and I've said as such myself: It is not my responsibility to hold another up, nor is it another's responsibility to hold me up.

As for "respect", I do not expect it from anyone. I will earn it when it is needed. Which leaves this place right out.

This dog won't not only hunt it won't even get to the hunt--- I don't know why everyone's getting in such a twit about this.

#40-- letusreason, are you related to lettucespray; no, you can't be, you're too reasonable.

"Mandatory jailtime and massive fines for all dissenters. Barack Hussein Uber Alles!

--Doc Goebbels"

So, Cookie:

What I hear you saying is that you'd like the status quo to continue, so that hard-workin', God-fearin' Amurricuns can squander their earnings on a new Dodge Ram to park out in front of the trailer, and obtain their family's health care from taxpayer-supported visits to a public hospital's E.R.

Can't be tellin' people they have to be responsible for themselves, now can we?

Matsop re 42: Not related to LetUsPrey as far as I know. And I am not as reasonable as you might think, check my post history. I'm just trying to be reasonable on this issue.

Here's the thing, maybe I need to emphasize it: "It is not my responsibility to hold another up, nor is it another's resposibility to hold me up."

That's the main thing. If I can't or won't hold myself up to that same standard (which a great many people who espouse the same thing won't do, because they are lying), then I wouldbe a blazing hypocrite here. And I am a blazing hypocrite in some things, I can't deny that. All humans are about some things. But on this, I can and will hold myself to that standard. I have to.

#43---Actually, maryquitecontrary, I don't agree with most of your posts but I do agree with this one--- If we're going to have an insurance system that most of us are paying for, it's rather obtuse that those that could afford it would not pay and then when injured severely, would cost shift their responsibilty to the rest of us. This is one part of the bill I could live with along with other minor points. The majority of the bill will ultimately be deep-sixed.

#44---thanks, the sad thing is there is a reasonable answer to the healthcare problem in this country and it's not that complex but with the agendas of both sides we won't get there.

The friends and relatives of all who voted for this bill will revile them in the years to come.

#35--- Are you rhetorically stating that you don't understand what hospice is or are you stating I don't know what hospice is --- if it's the latter I've been involved with hospice over the years and in fact, helped (along with hospice) my terminally ill neighbor last year before he succumbed from his cancer. Also, it was the latter you obviously didn't have the cerebral function to catch the tongue in cheek remark--- if you would like me to explain it please it just make the appropriate request.

1. Socialism
2. Communism
3. Fascism
4. Gov't subsidized pot for everyone, with dispensers available within 300 ft of every business

"I do not."

Not even emotionally???

the yeahs have it, and you are fired....

Danni, re 50: Emotionally, there is no one dependent on me, or vice versa. My family is concerned for my well being, and I for theirs, but we have all had this discussion. If it can be helped (and it can always be helped) I do not burden others with my difficulties. I am old enough (and have been for years) to take care of myself. I had best do that. If I do not, I deserve to get Darwined. Just my opinion.

Questions:

"The bill includes mandates for individuals to purchase and businesses to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Individual penalty is 2.5 percent of gross income unless they get a waiver. Businesses that don't offer insurance pay a fine equal to 8 percent of their payroll. Businesses with a payroll of less than $500,000 are exempt from the mandate. "

What happens if one member of a family accesses family policy through his employer and his wife rejects her employer's coverage because it's already, er, covered?

"Allows individuals up to 27-years-old to stay on their parent's health insurance "

This proviso would seem to suggest that they've thought of my earlier question.

"Provides tax subsidies for individuals between 150 and 400 percent (sliding scale) of the Federal Poverty Level. There are also tax subsidies for small businesses. "

Huh?

"As amended, it prohibits federal funds from covering abortions. Women would need to purchase riders to insurance purchased on the exchange if they wanted that coverage. "

What if the abortion is for medical reasons? Health of the mother and all that? How are they defining abortion?

JESTGET>...first part of this thread

kick ass stuff.

and without reading the garbage in between..lets see.
how many times were you called stupid...

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable