Let's Discuss the GOP Health Plan!!

BRAVO Rollo1

CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.

But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It's already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It's already made its compromises with reality. It's already been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank-slate alternative proposed by John Boehner and the House Republicans. The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill.

In addition, most individuals who have insurance right now would not see a noticeable drop in their costs. For 15% of the people who have insurance right now, premiums would be reduced by an estimated 7-10%. But for "nearly 80 percent of total private premiums," average insurance premiums would be reduced by only 0-3% by 2016.

Read more here, let's hope this link works: http://www.firedupmissour... , here is the correct link for the GOP plan with my apologies for the mistake: http://rules-republicans.... is nothing there about preexisting conditions. Of course, seeing something in a bill that isn't there is nothing new these days, is it?

Annie

Rollo, I forgot to mention that I REALLY take exception to your comment, "And they wonder why people compare them to Nazis?"

Anyone has the right to agree to disagree with any bill being discussed or voted on. It's to be expected there will sometimes be HUGE disagreements like there is with health care reform. However, when people in high levels of our government make comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust or when they compare health care proposals with al Qaeda I think that's WAY over the line and is indefensible! That absolutely offensive sign held up at the rally in Washington the other day, the one with the picture of corpses piled up during the Holocaust, should have been condemned by every House member who saw it.

Before you or someone else gives me that argument about equally despicable signs and pictures displayed by people against the Bush Administration let me assure you of this - IF anyone can show me evidence that at any time the Democratic leadership condoned or ignored anything even remotely comparable to the picture I mentioned above I'll say the same thing! I'm well aware and not at all proud of the fact there are and have been liberals who have done disgusting things but in this case the GOP House leadership was present and had in fact been the ones to organize the event, which is fine but they should have made it clear to the participants that this was NOT what they had in mind.

Annie

I know nothing about signs held up at rallies therefore my comment about Nazis has nothing to do with signs. It has to do with that pesky 5 year jail term for people who don't do what Pelosi and her gang of thugs demand.

Again, the Dems plan on people paying fines rather than going to jail, and count on that money to pay for their plan. I think it's despicable.

Premiums not going up for those who will not see a big decrease is actually a good thing for those who find premiums increasing annually.

Government takeover of the health care system will cost more in money and will collapse the economy once and for all as well as severely infringing on the rights of the individual.

Does either plan do anything about the outrageously high deductables the private insurance companies currently offer? IMO that's more of a problem than the cost of the premium. You pay the bill every month but get nothing for it until you've spent thousands of your own dollars first every year.

All that bull about being fined $250,000, being imprisoned or being forced to spend $15,000 per year for insurance is nothing more than typical fearmongering by the likes of Drudge and WND: http://mediamatters.org/m...

Let me try that link again: http://mediamatters.org/m...

"All that bull*snip* is nothing more than typical fearmongering by the likes of Drudge and WND:
Wow" target="_blank">http://mediamatters.org/m..."

Wow Annie, you accuse Rollo1 of using bull from WND and Drudge and combat it with bull from a hate blog like media matters. You sure showed us!

You could continue to suppose that I am telling you something I read on WND, and I could sneer at Media Matters, but the truth of it lies in the bill itself, which I am sure you read - since you linked to it.

But in case you didn't, here's some info:

HR3692
SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

-----

You must know that the government doesn't allow you to not pay a tax once they've imposed it. Now, if you decide not to buy and not to pay the tax, the penalties are not spelled out here, but reference the tax code:


(2) PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE-

(A) RETURN- Subparagraph (B) of section 6724(d)(1) of such Code is amended by striking `or' at the end of clause (xxii), by striking `and' at the end of clause (xxiii) and inserting `or', and by adding at the end the following new clause:

`(xxiv) section 6050X (relating to returns relating to health insurance coverage), and'.

(B) STATEMENT- Paragraph (2) of section 6724(d) of such Code is amended by striking `or' at the end of subparagraph (EE), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (FF) and inserting `, or', and by inserting after subparagraph (FF) the following new subparagraph:

`(GG) section 6050X (relating to returns relating to health insurance coverage).'.

----
A quick search of the tax code (as if that were possible) finds that 6724 (d) is a section that allows you to try to explain and beg before you are assessed the penalties under section 6721 and here is the IRS document on those sections:

"Section 6721 generally imposes a
penalty in the amount of $50 for each return with respect to
which a failure occurs, but not to exceed $250,000 per person
per calendar year. However, if a filer corrects a failure
within 30 days after the required filing date, the penalty
with respect to such return shall be $15 in lieu of $50, but
not to exceed $75,000 per filer per calendar year. Moreover,
if a filer corrects a failure more than 30 days after the
required filing date, but before August 1 of the calendar year
in which the required filing date occurs, the penalty with
respect to each return shall be $30 in lieu of $50, but not to
exceed $150,000 per filer per calendar year."
__________

This is not made up stuff - it's in their bill and these are the tax codes and penalties referenced therein. I don't care who says it isn't there, I have just read it for myself.

Oh and the figure of $15,000 for the lowest cost policy comes from the Congressional Budget Office, not from WND or Drudge or anyone else.

Sorry I've taken so long to get back to this! First, to Taskr, obviously whether a blog or website is or is not "hate-filled" is a matter of opinion. I mean, are the fearmongers that intentionally misrepresent the truth in order to promote their own agenda hate-filled or would it be that the one that admittedly is from the "other side" and has a bit of an agenda of its own that points out the misrepresentations hate-filled?

Annie

Here is the CBO report: http://74.125.95.132/sear... , I hope this link works!)

On page three you'll find this:

By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health
insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about
52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents
with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the
current share. CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the amendment’s insurance
coverage provisions would increase deficits by $8 billion over the 2010–2019
period.

52 MILLION UNINSURED!!

Also, the GOP plan would do nothing to stop the insurance companies from denying those with preexisting conditions and it would cut the deficit by less than the Democratic bill.

About that fine and imprisonment and people being forced to pay $15,000 per year for insurance.

The 2.5% tax or fee applies only to those who owe federal income tax after their deductions and exemptions. Also those with incomes of less than 400% of the poverty level will receive subsidies or credits to make insurance affordable. Any "fine" or prison sentence would be for those who fail to pay the fee and obviously few would go to prison just as VERY few go to prison for not paying their income taxes! The $15,000 per year figure is simply an average, which is around $5,300 for individuals. Some people will pay less.

Annie

"The 2.5% tax or fee applies only to those who owe federal income tax after their deductions and exemptions." That's a whole lot of people, Annie. The majority of working people don't find that their exemptions and deductions cause their modified gross income to be too little to be taxable.
And it's not a "tax or fee". It's a tax. It says tax in the bill. It's not a tax on income, it's not a tax on good or services that you received. It's a punitive tax that is illegally being imposed on people who do not purchase what the government tells them they must purchase.

As to your contention that very few people will go to jail for not paying this TAX (not fee) please be aware that the thugs in Washington are sure that most people would rather pay this punitive tax than risk going to jail. This is HOW THEY PLAN TO PAY FOR THIS!!!!

I am simply amazed that people are okay with the government imposing illegal and punitive taxes and threatening punishment for American citizens whose only crime is not spending $15,000 per year on a government mandated purchase. You guys really would rather just vote yes on anything rather than let nothing go through, even if it means sending US citizens to prison.

Wow.

No, you're not a "selfish old lady" at all, you have every right to want and to EXPECT those things. The bills being discussed and hopefully voted on before the turn of the next century won't take your Medicare away nor will they cover illegal immigrants or pay for abortions out of public funds. I hope you realize that even if we're on the opposite side of this issue I most definitely DON'T want you to "get screwed"!

One thing that will continue to happen if there isn't a compromise made allowing illegal immigrants to PAY FOR insurance is they'll continue to go to ERs and get treatment which WE will all continue to pay for one way or another if they can't or won't! No matter which "side" any of us are on regarding illegal immigration one thing is clear - they're not going to all get kicked out of the US en masse anytime soon. What is the common sense to this problem in the meantime? We're not about to literally throw deathly sick people out into the hospital parking lots and I don't think anyone would WANT to do that. I say, if we're going to have to treat them anyway, let's allow them to BUY insurance with their OWN MONEY that they've earned from CROOKED EMPLOYERS so the care they do receive won't be the most expensive possible and will be covered.

Annie

Annie

I hope you are correct. As I am already 70 years old I am not too sure if I will live long enough to see what happens in 10 or 20 years. If I do live (or should I say be allowed to live) to be very old I probably will not have all my "marbles" so I'll not know or care what is happening!!

Trust me, if you're nearly 70 now I think your "marbles" will be just fine! You're clearly as sharp as a tack, Hon, more so than some people I know who are MUCH younger!

Annie

This amendment had been discussed and defeated before. I have a question; what about those who already have insurance coverage that does cover abortions that they're paying for themselves? Is it right for them to no longer be able to do that? I know many people are opposed to abortion but it's STILL a legal procedure. Let's be honest, no woman would ever plan or expect to one day need an abortion which means nobody would choose to purchase a separate rider for that coverage "just in case"!

Annie

"what about those who already have insurance coverage that does cover abortions that they're paying for themselves? Is it right for them to no longer be able to do that?"
Are you saying these people would have to give up the coverage they have in the first place? Whats the problem if there are still private plans around that pay for this?

X, that's what I'd like to know. I guess we'd have to ask Rep. Stupak and the Republicans about that.

Annie

Well, we were all told it would leave us with the choice to not be on the government plan (still don't believe it) and that we wouldn't all be forced on to the government run program.

The ban is on federal money paying for abortions so it doesn't prohibit private companies from continuing to cover the procedure.

Thanks, Spall, I'd just found that out myself. It's another example of the facts being misrepresented by both sides because I'd clearly heard some say during the House debates that it would affect those who already had private insurance for which they paid themselves. I'd never expected that abortions would be covered by any government sponsored health plan so I have no problem with the amendment.

Annie

UPDATE!!
Now, it's looking rather blurred again. Most are saying that according to the Stupak/Pipps Amendment any insurer that wishes to participate in the "exchange" which will be similar to what Federal Employees have to choose from) can not offer abortion coverage AT ALL, even to those who pay their premiums entirely with their own money. If this is true, what will likely happen is most insurance companies will cease offering this coverage at all to anyone because by doing so they'll lose their share of millions of new potential customers.

Annie

People die in other countries and they DO have health insurance. They just die waiting for treatment.

That may be true but I know a lot of people here on mylot that have a NHS and they do like the treatment that they get for such a small fee. And you're right, I had one member here complaining that she has to wait 2 weeks for her crown when he tooth broke. When my tooth broke I shelled out $700 and had to wait 4 weeks, I just can't see what there is to complain about other than a bunch of ignorant people fearing the worst but, then again we are talking about those same ignorant people that supported Bush's Patriot Act and then were pissed when Obama continued it, makes no sense.

Piasa, people with insurance here die waiting for treatment, people with insurance here die because the insurers deny payment or rescind their policies for some trumped up reason and 45,000 people here die every year because they have no insurance.

Annie

Good question but I think another good question would be "who do the Democrats and Republicans care about?". The Republicans care about obstructing anything the Democrats want to do, the insurance lobby, obstructing anything the Democrats want to do, their far-right base, obstructing anything the Democrats want to do, the rich and did I mention obstructing anything the Democrats want to do?

On the other hand, the Democrats care about their base (for some), the pharmaceutical companies and the trial lawyers, their constituents and sucking up to the few moderate Republicans there are, which is ONE, namely Olympic Snowe and the most conservative members of their own party, in no particular order.

Annie

That's one thing that is hardly ever mentioned! They claim they're not against reform but they have "better ideas" than the Democrats yet when they had the majority and a minority that was afraid to disagree with them for fear of being labeled "un-American" they did nothing!

Annie

I'm assuming you mean you don't want to be "forced" to take health insurance, am I correct? Let's imagine that you don't have insurance and at some point in your life you or a family member for whom you're responsible becoming gravely ill or has a serious accident. I have no idea what your financial situation is but let's imagine the cost for treating this illness or injury would be in the high six figures or even higher. As the mother of an adult daughter with a serious chronic illness and as the daughter of my late mother who had multiple health problems near the end of her nearly 92 years I can assure you that is NOT a stretch at all.

What would you think should happen under these circumstances? You clearly don't want to be "forced" to buy health insurance, if I'm reading your words correctly, which leads me to believe you don't currently have it. As I already said, I have no idea what your financial situation is but let's just say MOST people couldn't come close to being able to pay these kinds of bills. What should happen? Should you or your loved one simply be denied care and perhaps be allowed to die? Should you be given the only the most basic needed treatment and then be forced to fend for yourself...or NOT? Should you be given whatever treatment is necessary, as someone with the best insurance in the world would be, and then you could maybe lose your home, be forced into bankruptcy and basically lose everything you've worked for your entire life? Perhaps you think you should be treated and then have your outstanding bills which you can't possibly pay without losing or selling your home be paid "by the taxpayers" or by those who are insured with the health care professionals who saved your life being forced to take a huge loss on your care?

If there's another alternative I don't know about I'd like to read about it!

Annie

Most people are not going to understand my feelings on this subject, and I can't blame them for thinking I'm nuts since this is a belief that few share or even understand. I have very strong beliefs when it comes to what the Bible teaches and it is my belief, no, it's more than just a belief, I know without any doubt that "by His (Jesus Christ) stripes, we are healed." You're right, I don't have health insurance because I don't want it, but I do have health assurance. Even before I accepted this gift from God that came through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I have had exceptional health. I never missed a day of school from first grade through my one year of college. Through my thirty-seven working years, I can only think of four days I missed due to illness and two of those days were when I had my wisdom teeth removed and I could have gone to work the next day, I just played hooky because I didn't want to go to a wedding shower the women in the office were having for a fellow employee. I was well into adulthood before I learned about this gift, but there is so much in Scripture that testifies to this blessing that I know it's true; and since I've accepted this gift, I feel even more healthy than I did before and I haven't been sick any. But even if I didn't believe as I do, I don't like the government planning my life for me. I truly believe that it's been the government's intrusion into health care that has caused the cost to skyrocket as it has. I also don't believe that the Constitution gives them the right to do what they're doing, Democrats or Republicans. Bottom line, I just have a real problem with being forced. I also believe that when the government gets their clutches into you, they never let go. I think people make a big mistake when they put so much hope in the government.

You didn't answer my question as to WHAT IF. Again, I don't know what your personal situation is, whether or not you have any dependents - a spouse or children - or if you're responsible only for yourself.

Also, what would you suggest should happen to those who haven't been given the same "gift" you have?

Annie

As I said before, I have health assurance which means the WHAT IF isn't a concern of mine. My healing comes from Jesus not from doctors. This "gift" is available for everyone; but for the most part the church no longer proclaims this truth, so most people put their dependency or faith in doctors and medicine. Since I want my dependency to be on God and not medical professionals and certainly not on the government, I have a real problem with being forced to carry health insurance. The other members of my immediate family have health insurance.