I have not confirmed the below statements, but I did want to pass this along.
I know this isn't a popular statement amongst my fellow Republicans, but honestly I thought the Baucus plan was ok. It had some things I disagreed with, but for the most part it fit with what I thought would be a good compromise on health care reform that might work. That is until I started seeing the marginal tax arguments against it (which personally I don't understand why it changes things, but the evidence is there).
Anyway, how soon can we get rid of Speaker Pelosi?
CHOICE Asset Management Commentary from George Shipp:
The House released its health care reform bill on Thursday and it is a whopper, weighing in at 19
pounds and measuring nearly nine inches tall. The 1,990 page, 400,000-word printout is longer
than War & Peace. The plan is estimated to cost $894 billion over ten years ($2.24 million per
word, notes the Politico blog). The bill includes a government sponsored health plan, mandates
everyone to buy health insurance with a penalty equivalent to 2.5% of their modified adjusted
gross income or the average premium, whichever is less, removes the ability to use flexible
spending accounts or health savings accounts to purchase over-the-counter medicines with pretax dollars, and bans insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing
conditions.
Hopefully our elected representatives are fast readers, since Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi commented that a vote could come as early as this Thursday. Wouldn’t it be more
prudent to actually give people time to read and review the bill before cramming it through?
Here’s a link to the bill in case you’re up all night trying to finish off that leftover
Halloween candy and you need something to put you to sleep:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf
Too bad that if you do want to read it, it might be un-readable -- again thanks to Politico,
you will stumble across paragraphs like:
“(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first
sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment
described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by
inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by
inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity
adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)”.
Me again. So, anyone think they can figure out that one paragraph's impact on our healthcare system would be before Thursday? How about this one along with the thousands of others? Better yet, how many of the primary supporters of this Bill have any clue as to what this paragraph says and then its impact on our healthcare system? And what on earth is the argument for getting rid of HSAs!!!!!!!
3 weeks ago
Posts
3 comments:
I just don't know if I have any more words about this. I'm just tired of how ludicrous this health care reform debate has been. I suppose I can see why they write the bill the way they do, but trying to push it through so quickly should be absolutely out of the question. I don't know how anyone in good conscience would vote for a bill like that they hadn't personally not only read but personally studied and understood. This isn't just some silly little piece of legislation, this is HUGE. What are people thinking. Well, so much for not having anything more to say.
Since you said you liked the Baucus plan, I have a question for you. John and I have been wondering about the "opt out" option for states. If our state opted out of the public option, which can happen under the Baucus plan, what would happen to our taxes? Will our federal taxes be lower since we aren't participating? Or will our taxes still pay for the public option, and we just don't get to participate?
The Chairman's Mark, at least what I read of the 223 page document doesn't have an opt out option for states. States can decide how long they want to take to phase in the federal standards (as long as it is within the 5 year time period). They can also decide whether or not they want to participate in the inter-state community pools. If they don't participate in that it doesn't mean that they won't be subject to any of the other federal mandates and those state's citizens would still be eligible for the national co-op. I guess overall I would say that after reading the plan I didn't agree with most of the Repubican spin that stated these co-ops were a mandated public option. Primarily because these co-ops currently exist in the private sector, it is just difficult for them to operate because there is no uniform rule on how insurance is regulated across state lines. That was one of my problems with the plan overall. Just remove or make uniform the current regulations and let the private sector fix the problems.
Anyway, not that all of that matters now since the Chairman's Mark is basically non-existent. I have no idea what the public option in this current bill looks like or how it is supposed to work.
Post a Comment