# Dem Health Plan Proposal has some Issues....



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 2, 2010)

Lets see, some problems....

# Riddled with Taxes: This  legislation is riddled with tax hikes.  They start by taxing those  earning over $10,831 year who dont buy health insurance $750a tax that  escalates to $3,800 as income rises.  Health insurance, health care  devices and drugs are also taxed, adding to the cost of health care, and  decreasing the competitiveness of these businesses.

# Medicare  Cuts: The bill cuts $500 billion in Medicare spending, including over  $130 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage and nearly $120 billion in  Medicare cuts for hospitals that care for seniors.  The Congressional  Budget Office (CBO) says they expected the Medicare Advantage plans to  lose 2.7 million enrollees over the next decade as a result.... See More

# Raises Insurance Prices: CBO also  finds premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher  than the average premiums in the current-law individual market 

#  Force, Not Choice: This legislation includes an individual mandate  forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance, like the  Massachusetts law.  Taxpayer subsidies will be given to those earning up  to three times the federal poverty level.  Those not qualifying for  subsides will be taxed up to $3,800 if they do not buy insurance, and  the Joint Tax Committee has confirmed failure to pay your fine could  result in jail time.  The experience in Massachusetts has left those  caught in between unable to afford insurance and having to pay the tax.

#  Big Insurance Boondoggle: Forcing all the uninsured into insurance  could bring as much as $200 billion a year in new premiums to insurance  companies, including $465 billion in subsidies over 10 years.  

#  Privacy Violation: This legislation would allow law enforcement  agencies such as the FBI and the Department of Justice unprecedented  unfettered access to medical records.

Could a Liberal who  supports this Bill please refute these talking points? 

If this  goes through:
- Your taxes WILL go up.
- Your insurance premiums  WILL go up.
- The Deficit WILL go up.
- Small Businesses WILL  close.

With more people impoverished, more people unemployed, and  more people dependent on the Government for their existence....how is  this an improvement?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 2, 2010)

I have enough trouble making my  over the legal limits but demanded anyway support payment. I can't  afford a car, nor can I afford an independent health plan. But, under  the Dem plan, I'll get to add another $400-800 a month that I don't  have, or face jail.  I'm still waiting for someone to explain how this  is a good thing?

Of course, I'm still waiting for alot of answers  from the supporters of this plan.

All I get is hollow "think of  the children" and "heartless" ********....  See More

The president said in his State of the  Union address that "we were sent here to serve our citizens, not our  ambitions. So let's show the American people we can do it together." 

Well,  what do you call jamming a bill through that 70+% don't want?


----------



## zDom (Mar 2, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I have enough trouble making my  over the legal limits but demanded anyway support payment. I can't  afford a car, nor can I afford an independent health plan. But, under  the Dem plan, I'll get to add another $400-800 a month that I don't  have, or face jail.  I'm still waiting for someone to explain how this  is a good thing?




Yep, I'm also barely making it (well, just UNDER making it, really; slowly but surely exhausting my meager savings) due to a court mandated child support set with no regard to my ability to pay (Thus sayeth the judge: "Well, I guess you need to earn more money.")

If the Dems pass this, I am seriously considering calling their bluff:

Yea. Send me to one of the ALREADY OVERCROWDED jails or prisons.

I'll use my one phone call to call a national media outlet on the day they cuff me. No using calling a lawyer: can't afford one of those, either.


*"Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."*  Henry David Thoreau


----------



## Shuto (Mar 2, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> .
> 
> # Medicare Cuts: The bill cuts $500 billion in Medicare spending, including over $130 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage and nearly $120 billion in Medicare cuts for hospitals that care for seniors. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says they expected the Medicare Advantage plans to lose 2.7 million enrollees over the next decade as a result.... See More


 
I've read articles that say Medicare is underfunded far worse than Social Security so I have no issue with the concept of cutting Medicare expenditures.  One can certainly argue about the specifics though.  

My big issue with this is that they are not using these savings to pay for the existing underfunded obligation.  Instead they are using it to help pay for a totally new obligation.  That is just wrong when govt spending is so far out of balance with revenue and has been for most of the last 60 years or more.  

We need to find a way to pay for all of the stuff we are currently buying before we consider new programs.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 2, 2010)

A crucial point constantly missed by the supporters is this:

The plan does not PROVIDE insurance coverage for anyone.

It REQUIRES that they buy it, or else. 

Seems that's a difference to me.


----------



## Shuto (Mar 2, 2010)

Sounds to me like your problem is with the divorce courts regardless of what happens with this HC legislation.


----------



## wushuguy (Mar 2, 2010)

many people will be affected if this goes as is. like my wife and i are also barely making it, because i had to take a lower paying job. even though we moved into a smaller apartment, we still can't afford $450+ for monthly health insurance. (edited to reflect 2 person family plan)

whoever thought up this plan didn't care what would happen to people either down on their luck, or just scraping by.  If they provide FREE insurance to the low income persons, then this plan would be great. but if they're taxing anyone who makes more than 10K, c'mon now, kids working at mcdonalds make that much in a year, and that's not even enough to afford a studio apartment these days... so how do they expect people who barely scrape by to pay for food, housing, transport, AND insurance? many people make too much to qualify for food stamps or other benefits, but not enough to pay for living, thus slowly going into debt. after savings run out, like myself, then the debt is added onto  credit cards, which only makes  things even worse. normally i don't like to complain, but forcing those who can't afford something to buy it otherwise face jail, well, that's not America anymore, I'm not sure what it is. 

It seems that the average joe loses out in this country, whereas the corporations make off with the cash. We ought to start some kinda mega martial artists corporation, to get government bailout so we can get our money back, lol.


----------



## zDom (Mar 2, 2010)

wushuguy said:


> If they provide FREE insurance to the low income persons, then this plan would be great. but if they're taxing anyone who makes more than 10K, c'mon now, kids working at mcdonalds make that much in a year, and that's not even enough to afford a studio apartment these days... so how do they expect people who barely scrape by to pay for food, housing, transport, AND insurance?



They are completely out of touch with what it takes to make ends meet.

The current salary for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year  and their health insurance is paid for. And they don't pay social security. And most of them have other perks and money coming in.

They have NO IDEA what it is like to try to make it on $20k/year. Clueless.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 2, 2010)

The Dem plan will destroy small  businesses by saddling them with increased taxes, increased record  requirements, and increased mandates. They want businesses to pay 72.5%  of the premium or face an additional 8% payroll tax.

The  FTR would increase to 45%. I'm not a rich, well off guy, so  seeing 45% of my earnings taken doesn't sit too well with me.

The  Dem plan will HURT small business growth, retard workers income, cause  rationing of services, continue to drag the economy down, and greatly  hurt the American people.

Companies that don't offer enough can  face fines of $100 per day per employee.

Every health ins plan  will get hit with an new tax to fund a government board to decide on  cost effective treatments, thus rationing care. Treatment considered  inefficient won't be allowed. So, if you're one of those 1%ers, you're  gonna die. Sucks.


----------



## d1jinx (Mar 2, 2010)

I have to say....   If OBAMA's health care plan and this are anything like the Military's current health plan, THEN WE ARE ALL SCREWED.

The Military's health Plan is not what it was 10 years ago.  Depending on what base you are at, there are no more on base emergency facilities.  the base hospital is now a clinic that outsources the doctors from the local area.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to get an appointment.  If you are sick RIGHT now, you can call and see if they have an appointment soon, which they NEVER DO and they expect you to come in in 3 weeks, go to after hours sick call where you will sit for 4 or more hours only to get rushed through and mis-diagnosed, or go to the local emergency room and sit for hours until someone sees you.

WHAT A ****ING JOKE.

And this is all because of the LAST DEMON-CRAT we had in office, Clinton and his outsourcing.

Good news people.... WE ARE ****ED.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 4, 2010)

Sent to both NY Senators via their web page, as well as NY Rep Brian Higgins.


> Senator,
> I am writing in opposition to the unconstitutional health care bill and the attempt by this Congress to force this unwanted legislation on the American People.  As a small business owner I am against this. As an American I am against this.
> 
> This act is little more than an unethical cash cow for the insurance industry who continues to raise premiums and subsidize insane gouging by the drug companies.
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 11, 2010)

And the replies I got back...little more than "more of the same, but I ain't listening to you" form letters.



> March 11, 2010
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Dear Mr. Hubbard:
> 
> Thank you for contacting me and expressing your opposition to health care reform in its current form.
> 
> ...





> Dear Friend:
> 
> Thank you for writing.  I have heard from countless
> Americans struggling to afford health insurance, as well as health
> ...



Not even the fake courtesy of personalization on the last one....

Nothing of course from Higgins.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 12, 2010)

I might not entirely agree with your views on this issue, Bob but I do have to commend you both on trying to be an active participant in your countries political process and also for the quality of the letter you sent.

It covered the points clearly and without being too lengthy - politicians and their staff have hyper short attention spans it seems and don't read anything that might tax their brain-cell(s) (potential plural added as one must be polite ).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

Shuto said:


> I've read articles that say Medicare is underfunded far worse than Social Security so I have no issue with the concept of cutting Medicare expenditures.  One can certainly argue about the specifics though.



Doctors are going bankrupt trying to keep Medicare patients and still pay the bills - they make less money from Medicare patients than they spend on their care.  Cut the amount doctors are paid, and they'll have to drop Medicare patients or at the very least, stop taking new patients.

This is a problem for seniors - they find themselves having Medicare, but being unable to find a doctor willing to take it.  That form of 'cutting costs' only hurts the elderly, it does not help anyone.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 12, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I might not entirely agree with your views on this issue, Bob but I do have to commend you both on trying to be an active participant in your countries political process and also for the quality of the letter you sent.
> 
> It covered the points clearly and without being too lengthy - politicians and their staff have hyper short attention spans it seems and don't read anything that might tax their brain-cell(s) (potential plural added as one must be polite ).


What it boils down to for me is this: legality and effectiveness.

None of what is being proposed is legal. Not by my interpretation, not by guys who argue cases in front of our Supreme Court, not by half our government. If the government wants this power, they need to obtain it legally, not take it and dare us to take it from them.

Also it's the effectiveness. I'm to be forced to buy a product I don't want, at a price I don't want to pay or else. Nothing is going to be done to address the real causes of why I don't want the product, or why it costs so much. It also doesn't really help anyone, except the insurance companies (who have a forced clientele. Estimates are they will make billions from this) and drug companies (who can continue to sell overpriced drugs at 2,000% profits). Hurt will be the poor, the old, and those who run their own businesses.

Basically consider this a hamburger. Except, it's a $500 a month burger. Their argument is, if we force everyone to buy burgers, the cost will come down. They also feel forcing others to pay extra for those who can't afford it is the right thing.
Never addressed is why that burger is $500.

That's my other problem.

They aren't trying to give us a system like England, Canada, Sweden, etc have.  Those all fall into the simplier "everyone pays taxes which pay for care for everyone" system. While still not currently a legal option here, it is a more effective model than what we're getting. Despite 60-70% of American's not wanting what they are forcing.

I've seen estimated costs of this system at over 30 TRILLION dollars over the next 20 years.  We can't afford that.  They are already talking about raising minimum income taxes to 45%. We can't afford that.

Remember, we are talking about a government that's used to paying $300 for a $15 hammer.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 12, 2010)

> In another arrogant display of legislative power and contempt for the  ordinary citizen, Rep. Louise Slaughter &#8211; the Pelosi ally who chairs  the all powerful House Rules Committee &#8211; is *said to be preparing the way  for the Senate health care bill to pass the House without ever being  voted on in order to overcome the fact that they don&#8217;t have the votes to  pass it.*
> 
> According to National Journal&#8217;s Congress Daily, Slaughter is giving  serious consideration to a plan that would " usher the health care  overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the  Senate overhaul bill&#8221; *by manipulating the rules of the chamber in such a  way that the Senate bill would be &#8220;deemed&#8221; as having passed once the  House approves a bill that would make the corrections certain members  want.*
> 
> It is now more apparent than ever that Pelosi and Reid and the White  House are committed to passing the health care bill by whatever means  necessary, even if they have to pull the wool over the public&#8217;s eyes to  do it. In essence, members of the House are being asked to base their  next vote on health care on a bill they and the American people have not  read and which has not, as yet, been written.



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...-care-pelosi-reconciliation-louise-slaughter/

Something stinks here.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

Here's another issue with this bill: undocumented aliens.

http://reason.org/blog/show/obamacare-undocumented-workers



> First, some background: The Senate bill bans undocumented aliens from buying coverage from the proposed government-created insurance exchange, even with their own money. This will essentially mean that these workers will be completely frozen out of the health care market - public or private, given that non-exchange-based insurance plans will become prohibitively expensive if not driven out of the market altogether under ObamaCare. Far from providing universal coverage, ObamaCare will become a vehicle to permanently deny coverage to about six million uninsured.



Now please note: this is not about illegal aliens getting free health care.  This is about them being forbidden from buying health care insurance, even with their own money.  Currently, an illegal alien can still buy health insurance on their own, if they want to and have the money to do so.  Under the new law, that would be forbidden.  As the article notes, that means at least six million people in the US would be denied health care coverage of any kind - paid for or not. 

And even if you think hey that's great, maybe they'll go home if they can't even buy health care coverage, there are two issues with it that you might care about.

First, the US has not engaged in selectively denying a group of people the right to spend their own money on something since anti-black 'Jim Crow' law days.  That's a real change in US policy, even if you think it's OK.

Second, and perhaps more importantly for the future of the Obama health care bill, the Hispanic caucus of the Democratic party flat-out won't vote for this bill in the House.  And many other Democrats flat-out won't vote for it if it is removed from the bill.

Interesting days ahead.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 12, 2010)

I can't shake my view that being against universal health-care provision is not rational but it is looking more and more like what is being proposed is not what I would recognise as being the American equivalent of the NHS - or even a step along the road towards it.

What is really quite worrying, from what Bob is digging up and posting here, is the way the political process is being subverted and spindled to 'make it happen'.  Even if I 100% agreed that the policy being railroaded through was the right one I still would never condone such an undemocratic method of doing so.

The chaps in power are supposed to be knowledgeable about politics (if nothing else) aren't they?  How can such a thing seem to them like anything but an undermining of the legitimacy of the system of government?  Lose legitimacy and you lose everything - that's why military coups can never be sustained for long i.e. no legitimacy.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I can't shake my view that being against universal health-care provision is not rational but it is looking more and more like what is being proposed is not what I would recognise as being the Americam equivalent of the NHS - or even a step along the road towards it.
> 
> What is really quite worrying, from what Bob is digging up and posting here, is the way the political process is being subverted and spindled to 'make it happen'.  Even if I 100% agreed that the policy being railroaded through was the right one I still would never condone such an undemocratic method of doing so.
> 
> The chaps in power are supposed to be knowledgeable about politics (if nothing else) aren't they?  How can such a thing seem to them like anything but an undermining of the legitimacy of the system of government?  Lose legitimacy and you lose everything - that's why military coups can never be sustained for long i.e. no legitimacy.



I absolutely agree with you.

Look at it this way - as a conservative, I am, yes, against universal health care.

However, I'd take that over the issues we currently have with US health care and the choices being made - which fix NOTHING and hurt MANY.

I am tired - really tired - of hearing my liberal relatives tell me how much they want this health care plan to pass, and then they describe the joys of single-payer (which this isn't) or universal health care (which this isn't); and all I can think is THEY ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.  This bill does NOTHING they seem to think it will.  It's just called 'Health Care Reform' and that's all they seem to care about.  Oooh, it reforms health care.  Rah, freaking rah.  Now tell me what it fixes.  Oh, well, who cares about that?

I care. But I'm conservative, therefore my opinion doesn't count.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 12, 2010)

That is exactly my points.
Circumventing the proper procedures, being something it isn't, not doing what it says, hurting the very people it's being marketed as helping.

I said before, tack on a 15% sales tax, give me an ID card and let me walk into any hospital or doctors office, show the card, get treated and walk out without touching my wallet, while providing me with good care, hey, I might get behind that.
I'll still insist on the Constitutionality test, but hey, if you;re going to shove something down my throat, I'll take crab and lobster over carp and crap any day.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 13, 2010)

Senate  Health Bill Would Up Costs for Millions in Middle Class, Analysis Finds



> The Senate health care bill crucial to saving President Obama's  signature domestic initiative will hit the wallets of a quarter of all  Americans making less than $200,000 per year, according to an analysis  by the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee that assessed the way the bill  would hit taxpayers directly through new taxes and fees and indirectly  through taxes levied on health care providers and passed on to  consumers.
> The committee also determined that the bill would subsidized  insurance premiums for 7 percent of taxpayers -- about 13 million people  -- while some 73 million people would face higher costs from the new  fees and taxes.
> ...
> "For every family that gets some benefit from this program, in other  words, a premium subsidy, three families are going to get a tax increase  and those three families obviously include the bulk of people you'd  call middle class America," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News.





 Senators  Resist Obama Over Projects in Health Bill 					      					      	 					    			March 13, 2010 					    				 					    		

»
 Health  Care Bill 'Still a Jump Ball,' White House Official Says


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 14, 2010)

> To make matters more complicated,  Democratic leaders are considering an option -- never tried before -- to  avoid getting stuck with a recorded "yes" vote on a Senate bill they  oppose by using a maneuver that some authorities say is  unconstitutional.
> 
> The procedural move -- proposed by Rep.  Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, *would  allow Democrats to usher through the Senate bill *(which, by the way,  still has a House numerical designation) *without actually having a vote  "on passage" of the legislation.*
> 
> ...


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-health-care-biggest-faith-based-vote-house/

The good news.
1 member of the House has a copy of the Constitution and has read it.

The bad news.
The Speaker of the House doesn't seem to care what the Constitution allows.


----------



## kungfu penguin (Mar 14, 2010)

my only gripe w/ the health plan as i understand it  is if you have a chronic illness  like diabetes  you are screwed  if you are over 55  you are also screwed  but lastly,  when obama was asked if he would use the new health care system  he changed the subject  if you dont believe enough  in your product  dont endorse it!  [you dont buy hair care products from bald people]


----------



## Satt (Mar 15, 2010)

d1jinx said:


> I have to say.... If OBAMA's health care plan and this are anything like the Military's current health plan, THEN WE ARE ALL SCREWED.
> 
> The Military's health Plan is not what it was 10 years ago. Depending on what base you are at, there are no more on base emergency facilities. the base hospital is now a clinic that outsources the doctors from the local area.
> 
> ...


 
Amen. I talked to my VA doc recently and he said the OBAMA plan is going to be "modeled after the VA program because it works so well." I didn't really say anything, but in my head I was thinking OMFG!!! :barf:


----------

