House passed the Health Bill

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3253834
How many years ago was that and what was the tax write off limit then? See this has chnged quite a bit over the years. It used to be a set dollar amount...then went to a percentage. That percentage has fluctuated over the years. So just because you didn't qualify then, does not mean the same circumstance would apply today.
This is my point. we created this plan for 32 million people. a small percentage of the population. And you say this is needed and a good thing. I would agree with that. But then, when their is a tax increase, your logic is, well it is only a few people.....which isn't true, not everyone has insurance that picks up 90% of the cost. But regardless....you are willing to give a pass because in your mind it "isn't everyone" that loses this option. No, it is the people that need it most...the elderly and those with young children or children with medical problems.
All of this stuff varies state to state, policy to policy and time to time. I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to a continuing discussion on the broken (even after passage of this bill) state of US health care overall.
Darth, you make some salient points. 32 million people is, however, not a small percentage of the population. There will be a tax increase to cover those who can't afford it. If 32million were a small %age of the population, then the tax increase would be comparitively even smaller (insurance being a percentage of risk cost), so really, why worry about it? In the greater scheme of things, there are much bigger tax increases on the way than this poses.
Bionic, you make some good points as well, however, what we have received is not Universal Health care. What we've received is the Federal equivalent of mandatory state auto insurance. The product still sucks, but the insurance companies now get paid by more people for it. No - you can no longer be denied based on your record, but they can still charge whatever they want for it and it's now been mandated, as a condition of maintaining your good standing citizenship, that you buy something from a private entity.
Nobody involved in this debate is following the money. If the bill were as bad for Insurers as is touted, then why hasn't their stock fallen? It, in fact - as an aggregate - has risen in the wake of the bill's passage.
If the best indication of what is good for Capitalism is a stock ticker, then I cannot imagine what the detractors of this bill think is so bad (the shareholders are clearly not worried), nor can I figure what the proponents think is so good (you've just lost individual Constitutional rights to those of a Corporation, which, not being a person (until recently,) had no rights under the Constitution whatsoever except the ability to conduct business AT We the People's pleasure.)

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3253949
All of this stuff varies state to state, policy to policy and time to time. I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to a continuing discussion on the broken (even after passage of this bill) state of US health care overall.
Darth, you make some salient points. 32 million people is, however, not a small percentage of the population. There will be a tax increase to cover those who can't afford it. If 32million were a small %age of the population, then the tax increase would be comparitively even smaller (insurance being a percentage of risk cost), so really, why worry about it? In the greater scheme of things, there are much bigger tax increases on the way than this poses.
Bionic, you make some good points as well, however, what we have received is not Universal Health care. What we've received is the Federal equivalent of mandatory state auto insurance. The product still sucks, but the insurance companies now get paid by more people for it. No - you can no longer be denied based on your record, but they can still charge whatever they want for it and it's now been mandated, as a condition of maintaining your good standing citizenship, that you buy something from a private entity.
Nobody involved in this debate is following the money. If the bill were as bad for Insurers as is touted, then why hasn't their stock fallen? It, in fact - as an aggregate - has risen in the wake of the bill's passage.
If the best indication of what is good for Capitalism is a stock ticker, then I cannot imagine what the detractors of this bill think is so bad (the shareholders are clearly not worried), nor can I figure what the proponents think is so good (you've just lost individual Constitutional rights to those of a Corporation, which, not being a person (until recently,) had no rights under the Constitution whatsoever except the ability to conduct business AT We the People's pleasure.)

You are now required to buy insurance and there is nothing to keep them from increasing the rates as much as they want. I honestly don't know what to think on this but it could be a back fire of historic preportions if the rate increases are announced before November. All the Republicans have to do is say "we told you this would happen".

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3253968
You are now required to buy insurance and there is nothing to keep them from increasing the rates as much as they want. I honestly don't know what to think on this but it could be a back fire of historic preportions if the rate increases are announced before November. All the Republicans have to do is say "we told you this would happen".
From what I've garnered from the bill so far, I agree.
We have successfully achieved the worst of all possible worlds: The D's voted largely for reform for the pure sake of it, and the R's voted against, not because the bill itself was bad law, but because they were butt hurt about it.
That's no way to run a country...

 

[darkslide820]

I work with taxes, so I'll just quickly reinforce a few points I saw here on the last page.
As far as the 1040 Sch A Medical Expenses go, you can deduct whatever is over 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income, so long as you're filing Sch A in the first place. Your medical expenses would include, as discussed here, insurance premiums, co-pays, prescriptions, etc. Nothing elective or cosmetic.
Re: the hot tub. If it's been prescribed by your doctor and you have adequate proof to show that you've been instructed to use the tub for physical therapy, why couldn't you deduct such costs? If it's been a while since that was originally prescribed, maybe make regular visits to the doc to show the activity is still necessary. Just don't do anything over-the-top (tax law allows ordinary and necessary expenses).
Re: medical bills. Right, you only deduct the portion of bills that you pay, unreimbursed by insurance. If you paid $250 for something and then got reimbursed by Aetna, you didn't have any economic loss there, so why a deduction? You get to deduct your insurance premiums too, so you're at least covered in that regard.

 

[darthtang aw]

This article does a good job of showing us what is next.............
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2010032603755
We have no choice now, but to do this.

 

[reefraff]

I have actually been reading this bill. Not only do they specifically call the penalty for not buying insurance a tax, there looks to be a provision that insurance companies cannot claim that part of a salary in excess of 500K a year as a business expense. I don't think that would stand a challenge. If the Supreme Court were to get a case were they found 2 or 3 provisions unconstitutional they could throw the whole bill out. I doubt that we are that lucky but we can always hope.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3254269
From what I've garnered from the bill so far, I agree.
We have successfully achieved the worst of all possible worlds: The D's voted largely for reform for the pure sake of it, and the R's voted against, not because the bill itself was bad law, but because they were butt hurt about it.
That's no way to run a country...

No, it is a bad bill.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3253949
All of this stuff varies state to state, policy to policy and time to time. I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to a continuing discussion on the broken (even after passage of this bill) state of US health care overall.

What is broke about health care? The care itself is NOT broke. Can it be improved? Yes. Are we working to improve it every day? Yes.
Take for example my board. I am a diplomat of the American Board of Emergency Medicine. It takes passing a written and oral test to pass the boards. Then a few years ago they added "life long learning". Basically the best minds in emergency medicine look over all the literature and try to find the studies that are life saving or change the way we do things. I then have to read, understand and pass a test on theses articles every year. I also have to pass a recertification test every 10 years. I also have to show practice improvement to my board. All this to keep my board certification.
Yeah, this is really broke.
All the boards have similar pathways.
The bill/law is not about healthcare so much as it is about more gov't. Look how much it expands the IRS and all the new gov't positions just to check up on you. where in the Constitution does it say we have to put our health insurance on our 1040?
Welcome to the USSA

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3254543
What is broke about health care? The care itself is NOT broke. Can it be improved? Yes. Are we working to improve it every day? Yes.
Take for example my board. I am a diplomat of the American Board of Emergency Medicine. It takes passing a written and oral test to pass the boards. Then a few years ago they added "life long learning". Basically the best minds in emergency medicine look over all the literature and try to find the studies that are life saving or change the way we do things. I then have to read, understand and pass a test on theses articles every year. I also have to pass a recertification test every 10 years. I also have to show practice improvement to my board. All this to keep my board certification.
Yeah, this is really broke.
All the boards have similar pathways.
The bill/law is not about healthcare so much as it is about more gov't. Look how much it expands the IRS and all the new gov't positions just to check up on you. where in the Constitution does it say we have to put our health insurance on our 1040?
Welcome to the USSA
You're right. The care itself is neither broke nor broken. The system which administers it, however, is both.
What's broken about it is that if I lose my job, I cannot afford to keep my health care. Or, if I both develop a condition and want to change jobs, I could be denied coverage for either a pre-existing condition or crossing state lines in the process. Why should my health coverage be a consideration in wanting to better myself?
What's broke about it is that the health care company business model was not sustainable. Costs have been rising at more than triple the rate of inflation for the last few decades with no end in sight or any sort of proposal on how to reign the cost inflation in. How long before the insurance CEO's are asking DC for a rescue plan like the airlines, banks and the auto industry?

 

[reefraff]

We are all victims of the success of medical science. 60 years ago we'd die of many things that are cured or detected today using expensive tests or procedures. You learned to live with pain rather than have a joint replacement which costs in the tens of thousands. If you wanted to lose weight you ate right and exercised rather than having surgery.
No easy answer to this.

 

[mrdc]

Talk about a long empty answer ,,,
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...-word-res.html

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by mrdc
http:///forum/post/3254681
Talk about a long empty answer ,,,
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...-word-res.html
Someone really needs to tell Obama to shut the hell up. I say this from a point or pure political strategy and not the fact I dislike his policies. He is way over saturating himself in the media. Even people who voted for him will quickly tire of his constant rush to the camera's. His health care vaudville act is going to cash in a lot of his drawing power well ahead of the fall elections when Democrats need him most.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3254583
You're right. The care itself is neither broke nor broken. The system which administers it, however, is both.
What's broken about it is that if I lose my job, I cannot afford to keep my health care. Or, if I both develop a condition and want to change jobs, I could be denied coverage for either a pre-existing condition or crossing state lines in the process. Why should my health coverage be a consideration in wanting to better myself?
What's broke about it is that the health care company business model was not sustainable. Costs have been rising at more than triple the rate of inflation for the last few decades with no end in sight or any sort of proposal on how to reign the cost inflation in. How long before the insurance CEO's are asking DC for a rescue plan like the airlines, banks and the auto industry?
I thought medicaid, SSI and medicare were supposed to fix this 46 years ago. What happened to these gov't porkgrams? Why are they not doing what they were intended to do?
Why. they are now mor eof a hammock than a safety net.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3254816
I thought medicaid, SSI and medicare were supposed to fix this 46 years ago. What happened to these gov't porkgrams? Why are they not doing what they were intended to do?
Why. they are now mor eof a hammock than a safety net.
Had the programs not been expanded so far beyond their original scope perhaps they would work. Back in the 90's the husband of one of my Stepdad's daughter was collecting SSI because he was a drunk and couldn't hold down a job. I'm sorry but sober up and go bus tables or something.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3254816
I thought medicaid, SSI and medicare were supposed to fix this 46 years ago. What happened to these gov't porkgrams? Why are they not doing what they were intended to do?
Why. they are now mor eof a hammock than a safety net.
When was the last time a Medicare patient with an emergent condition received treatment from you, and you weren't paid? That is what Medicare is supposed to do, and it does it.

 

[bionicarm]

Here's an interesting twist. It appears all these State Attorney General's are trying to use this handgun Supreme Court decision from 1990 to argue the illegality of the health care bill:
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...aXuGzF6Pg.cspx
So if these guys win this lawsuit, does that kill it for the entire country, or just the 13 states filing the lawsuit? If they do manage to win, I sure hope it's all 50 states. With Texas in the lawsuit, the last thing I want is more stinking Conservatives moving to Texas.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3254898
Here's an interesting twist. It appears all these State Attorney General's are trying to use this handgun Supreme Court decision from 1990 to argue the illegality of the health care bill:
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...aXuGzF6Pg.cspx
So if these guys win this lawsuit, does that kill it for the entire country, or just the 13 states filing the lawsuit? If they do manage to win, I sure hope it's all 50 states. With Texas in the lawsuit, the last thing I want is more stinking Conservatives moving to Texas.

Interesting. Had the Democrats allowed buying the insurance across state line the commerce clause claim would be pretty much baseless. Be pretty funny if that's what ended up killing the bill.

 

[reefraff]

I am not Crimzy nor did I stay at a Holiday inn last night but once the Supreme court makes a ruling it becomes the law of the land. Good thing, we don't need no more whiny liberals moving to Colorado for more welfare

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3254927
I am not Crimzy nor did I stay at a Holiday inn last night but once the Supreme court makes a ruling it becomes the law of the land. Good thing, we don't need no more whiny liberals moving to Colorado for more welfare

touche.
Better hope they get this lawsuit to the Supreme Court before Stevens retires. If Obama and Crew get to pick another justice, you can forget about them ruling in favor of these Attorney General's.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3254980
touche.
Better hope they get this lawsuit to the Supreme Court before Stevens retires. If Obama and Crew get to pick another justice, you can forget about them ruling in favor of these Attorney General's.
Not at all, Stevens is a Republican Nominee but part of the Liberal voting block. Soutter was too. That is part of the reason the Republicans seemed so stubborn about the appointments under Bush. Daddy Bush, Ford and Nixion all made compromise appointments suggested by the Dems who turned out to be pretty consistant liberal votes, Reagan to a lesser extent with O'connor.
Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito make up the conservative block and Kennedy is a swing vote, another Republican nominee who was kind of a dissapointment.