Post Reply
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
4 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2010 - 6:09PM #41
Erey
Posts: 18,366

Mar 22, 2010 -- 5:19PM, David52194 wrote:


Mar 22, 2010 -- 5:04PM, Erey wrote:


I won't carry on about hammers and cicles but the Dem claims have been dishonest - that is the mildest way to put it. Obama has been the biggest liar of all.


What are you claiming that Obama and other Democrats have lied about? 

Everyone has insurance but they were wrong to claim this would save working americans any money - it won't.  In fact it will very clearly make it all much more expensive - but only for americans that work.


What evidence is that that his law will make health care much more expensive? 

There are broad based tax increases - effecting the middle class to the wealthy.  Now if as a couple you make a combined income of 250K you will pay very close to 45% in taxes.


I'm not sure I see your point.  The highest federal marginal income tax rate in the U.S. will be 39.6 percent.   

There will also have to be very broad based reform to health care delivery - there will simply have to be unless you want to continue to tax the people who work beyond sustainability.  Because there is nothing, not a damn thing in the plan that will reduce the actuall cost of health care.


What do you mean by “reduce the actual costs of health care?“  Do you mean to consumers?  If so, what evidence is there that this legislation will not reduce health care costs for any or most U.S. citizens?  Many reasonable people predict that this health care legislation will reduce health care costs for the nation as a whole.  Here is a link to the official White House report on what they think will be the economic affects of this legislation:

www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_...  




 


all this has been covered in:


 


www.forbes.com/2010/03/21/health-care-vo...


 


and

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2010 - 9:06PM #42
David52194
Posts: 888

Mar 22, 2010 -- 6:09PM, Erey wrote:


all this has been covered in:


 


 


 www.forbes.com/2010/03/21/health-care-vo...


 


 


and


What has been covered?  If I'm not mistaken, what you are suggesting is that this new health care law will increase health care costs for U.S. consumers.  Is that what you are claiming?  Do you mean all U.S. consumers?  Most?  Some?  Here is the article you linked to:


www.forbes.com/2010/03/21/health-care-vo... 

The article, by Brian Wingfield et al., appears at Forbes.com.  Here is what it says on the issue of the cost of premiums:

LOSERS

The Insured

If you already have good insurance, the bill will probably drive up your premiums. This is especially true if you buy your own insurance but don't qualify for any of the new subsidies. A family in California that buys its own insurance but makes more than the $88,000 cut-off for subsidies will be hit with a double-digit increase in the cost of coverage, above and beyond inflation.


First, Wingfield offers no evidence to support the forecast that "if you already have good insurance, the bill will probably drive up your premiums."  And he offers no evidence to support the claim that "a family in California that buys its own insurance but makes more than the $88,000 cut-off for subsidies will be hit with a double-digit increase in the cost of coverage, above and beyond inflation."

Second, according to Wingfield, "But even if you get your insurance at work you'll have to indirectly cover the new taxes on medical providers."  What new taxes is he referring to?  Is referring to the excise tax?  According to CBO, “On net, CBO and JCT estimate that the excise tax and the resulting behavioral changes, incorporating the changes in premiums for employer-sponsored insurance that were discussed earlier in this analysis, would reduce average premiums among the 19 percent of policies affected by the tax by about 9 percent to 12 percent in 2016” (emphasis added, p. 25).  Here is a link:

cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Pre...  

I believe that the bill also includes some taxes on medical device manufacturers and drug importers.  CBO found those taxes would have a less than 1 percent effect on premium costs.  Here is a link:

www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10618/09-22...

It’s in the second paragraph on page 2.  


Finally, Wingfield writes: "Also, it's likely that those who have private insurance will face higher rates from hospitals, doctors and medical testing labs as providers try to make up for increased numbers of low-paying Medicaid customers."  However, it seems unlikely that the increased number of Medicaid beneficiaries will cause private insurance companies to raise the price of premiums.  First, there are provisions in the legislation to limit how much insurance companies can increase the cost of premiums.  And the health insurance exchanges will increase the ease for costumers to compare the costs of various health insurance policies.  So, it will be easier for patients to leave a company that increases premiums dramatically for another company.   

Second, Obama is calling for raising Medicaid rates for primary care services -- specifically, evaluation and management services, such as office visits -- to Medicare levels.  Here is a link:

www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718673

Third, according to a New York Times article, “The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers.”  Here is a link:

www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/health/policy...

Finally, according to an estimate by CBO, the cost of most people’s premiums would go down.  

Here is a link:

cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Pre...  

There is a chart on page 5, though it is a little confusing.

However, according to CBO, “CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.”  Nevertheless, according to CBO, “about half of those enrollees would receive government subsidies that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law.”  My understanding is that 57% of the people with nongroup policies will recieve subsidies that make it so their premium costs are less than they would be if the health are law were not enacted.  

Thus, some people’s premium costs (even with the subsidies they get) may be higher with this new law than would have been the case without it.  But it still good for the law to pass.  More people will be able to get insurance than before.  And most people’s costs will be lower.  And it also will reduce the deficit significantly.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 23, 2010 - 9:39AM #43
Druac
Posts: 11,196

And today he signs it. I went ahead and co-signed it for him first. :)

Jesus Is My Savior...He Saves Me From REALITY!
---------------------------------------------
We created god in our own image and likeness!
[George Carlin]
---------------------------------------------
"Reason & Logic" - A Damn Good Slogan!
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook