What changes, if any do you think will come from this meeting tomorrow?
Are they too far away, on too many issues for this meeting to be of any value?
Do they slam a lid on the Unions "apparent" bye on taxes for Cadillac health care plans?
Head some where in the direction of TORT reforms?
Some tweaking, and this plan could fly.
1 edit
I assume by "health care bill" you mean the one which passed the Senate. The most likely changes:
The special benefits to individual States will be scrapped. The tax on expensive policies will be eliminated or greatly reduced and the union exemption will be dropped. Some taxes on those with incomes over $250,000 will be added. The penalties for not buying insurance will be lessened. There will be some agency to regulate health insurance companies as far as rates in non-competitive areas of the country (which is virtually all of them).
The Democrats will pass it one way or another; they have nothing to gain by not pushing through health care reform (they already voted for it so it will be an election issue) and quite a few of the individual provisions are politically popular.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy is this penalty for not having insurance so controversial anyway? Who doesn't want to get better when they get sick? Those kind of people probably need medical help, and they might as well get coverage for that.
I assume by "health care bill" you mean the one which passed the Senate. The most likely changes:
The special benefits to individual States will be scrapped. The tax on expensive policies will be eliminated or greatly reduced and the union exemption will be dropped. Some taxes on those with incomes over $250,000 will be added. The penalt ...[text shortened]... ll be an election issue) and quite a few of the individual provisions are politically popular.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo one likes being made to do something even if it's good for them. "Mandatory" anythings are usually resisted by the US electorate. And the supporters of health care reform have done a very poor job explaining why the individual mandate is necessary (i.e. because without it many healthy people won't buy insurance until they are sick meaning that insurance companies would have to cover a disproportionate amount of unhealthy people making coverage unprofitable [or a lot less profitable]).
Why is this penalty for not having insurance so controversial anyway? Who doesn't want to get better when they get sick? Those kind of people probably need medical help, and they might as well get coverage for that.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPeople don't want to have to buy expensive insurance for stuff they know they can handle out-of-pocket. There seems to be this idea that it violates some sacred oath to expect people to pay for any of their own care. I think people would be okay with an insurance mandate if it was to only cover truly catastrophic costs.
Why is this penalty for not having insurance so controversial anyway? Who doesn't want to get better when they get sick? Those kind of people probably need medical help, and they might as well get coverage for that.
The big problem is finding a way to pay for the really sick people who require a lot of expensive healthcare treatment every year. Private insurance isn't designed to handle these sorts of people. The only way that sort of works is to force all the healthy people to buy much much more coverage than they'd ever want so that their premiums can be used to pay for all the sick people. It would be much better to just expand Medicare or Medicaid to cover these cases.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat he said.
No one likes being made to do something even if it's good for them. "Mandatory" anythings are usually resisted by the US electorate. And the supporters of health care reform have done a very poor job explaining why the individual mandate is necessary (i.e. because without it many healthy people won't buy insurance until they are sick meaning that insuran ...[text shortened]... tionate amount of unhealthy people making coverage unprofitable [or a lot less profitable]).
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell not smoking is "good" for you. Why can't the government force you to stop smoking? In fact, if I'm going to pay for your sorry arse smoking your life a way, shouldn't I have a say?
Why is this penalty for not having insurance so controversial anyway? Who doesn't want to get better when they get sick? Those kind of people probably need medical help, and they might as well get coverage for that.
Originally posted by whodeyLets add that factor to Life insurance policies too. I have never been a smoker, but I get charged a premium as my age goes up, although my risk may be less than a 2 pack a day smoker... ?
Well not smoking is "good" for you. Why can't the government force you to stop smoking? In fact, if I'm going to pay for your sorry arse smoking your life a way, shouldn't I have a say?
Every 2 years, lets run a tread mill test, and base the Life insurance price, on the cardio rsults??
Originally posted by whodey"Government force" are just two words that Americans find very abrasive. When we're talking about our own gov't forcing us citizens to do something, of course...
Well not smoking is "good" for you. Why can't the government force you to stop smoking? In fact, if I'm going to pay for your sorry arse smoking your life a way, shouldn't I have a say?
Originally posted by Hugh GlassBut they want to get rid of insurance. In other words, they want to stop penalizing high risk individuals for being high risk. That way I pay for your smoking instead of you.
Lets add that factor to Life insurance policies too. I have never been a smoker, but I get charged a premium as my age goes up, although my risk may be less than a 2 pack a day smoker... ?
Every 2 years, lets run a tread mill test, and base the Life insurance price, on the cardio rsults??