Day: October 13, 2009

My Last Temptation?

I have forced myself to think about other stuff other than health care….but just when I was winding down……they drag me back in…tempting me…….

Honestly….I tried to stop posting and ranting about the health debate….but no matter how hard I try to turn my attention elsewhere…the idiots talk and I listen and then I go off the wall ……again……sorry….I cannot break the addiction…..I try….I really try……I am a sick puppy.

The Senate Finance Committee is winding down their circus known as the “mark-up” process and soon (we can only pray) something will be sent to the House and the whole magilla starts all over again.  Before my head explodes I need to point out a few things contained within the Baucus Bill.

We have all seen the drama coming from the Senate…..the defeat of 2 separate public option tries…..the death panels….the abortion stuff….the…..you get the idea……

First there is the penalty thing:

Under the senator’s plan — known as “America’s Healthy Future Act” — individuals who fail to pay the $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance could be charged with a misdemeanor and face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 fine.

Think about that for a moment…..(pause of thought)…….the IRS would be tasked with enforcing this if it is accepted…..think about that….it would be a Federal crime and if you were sent to prison it would be in a Fed pen…..got that?…..while in prison you would be eligible for free health care…..think about that….would not that be the government paying for your health care?…….think!……… Is that not what a single payer would be doing?

And there are the taxes that could go along with the Baucus bill.

Among the biggest last-minute changes was a vote to limit the impact of a new 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans sold to retirees and workers in risky professions such as mining. The levy would generate about $200 billion in revenue to help fund the broader health reforms.

The legislation initially would have subjected most insurance plans to the tax when they provide benefits in excess of $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families. The amendment adopted today would raise those thresholds to $9,850 and $26,000 for retirees and workers in high-risk jobs.

Oh wait!  There is more, there is always more……..a new twist in the public option option.

Cantwell’s amendment directs states to create a “basic health plan” for families who currently have a hard time finding coverage: those who aren’t eligible for Medicaid, but who still struggle to afford insurance.

The measure would apply to people who make up to twice the federal poverty level — about $44,000 for a family of four.

The parameters of this proposed “basic health plan” are defined by the state government but the coverage is administered by private insurers. The plan is modeled after Washington’s twenty-year old Basic Health Plan:

In essence, what Washington state does is define a basic health plan–it sets the deductible, out of pocket limit, co-pays, drug cost sharing, and defines exactly what must be covered. Private insurers bid to be able to offer basically this exact same plan. A few private insurers are qualified; there are small differences in the basic health plan depending on the insurer the individual selects. Premiums are subsidized by the state to make the plans affordable.

Wait!….I hate to crap on the party but……..the thing that the Senator is proposing as a “public option”………is not that the job of the state’s insurance commissioner?  Point is….I think that is being done now….if not it should be…..

Senator Cantwell has said that she supports the public option……if so then what was this she offered up?  Is it truly a boon to the consumer or is it just a way to help preserve private profit?  To me it sounds more like a co-op (A Conrad proposal) than a true public option…in other words it helps the Insurance companies more than the people.

There you have the temptations that were offered up to me….that I had to comment on or my head would have imploded…..(some might even applaud the prospect of my head imploding).

So You Want A Budget Neutral?

The more programs that the Obama group puts out there trhe call for them to be budget neutral….that is not adding to the deficit…..good gig if it can be found…..

This is a joke in the first place……when was the last time conservatives were fiscally responsible?  Reagan comes to mind…..it is becoming a tiresome argument at best….

Let us go with health care for a moment….the latest CBO report says that it will cost $820 billion to pass the health bill issued by Bauccus and his gang of insurance agents….but will it be budget neutral?  Obama has said he will NOT sign a bill that adds to the deficit…..good sentiment…….

But can it be accomplished?  Uh huh….but some would not like the solution…..Between the years 2002 to 2008 the wars we are fighting have cost $1.6 trillion….I do not recall anyone asking that these wars were budget neutral….Sorry I digress…..

If we stop all that stuff then there is more than enough cash to cover everyone in the US with cash left over for helping education out…..

God, how could I have been so silly as to think that the people of this country would be more important than fighting wars….after all the defense industry needs its corporate welfare…..

When will the citizens of this country tire of the silliness of the political system?  When will the people realize that others in our country need our help?  This why some people stop voting…..their choices one bowl of shit or the other bowl of shit….not much of a choice if one wants American citizens to succeed and be well….

Just a thought……

Is “Opt Out” Proposal Good Or Bad?

It is about enough of who won what prize and who wants to own a NFL team…there is far more important issues that need analysis……

Since single payer was a NO SHOW in the deliberations and the public option will most likely be in name only….what options are being considered now?  Glad you asked….and this one is a doosey (sp?)…….

As reported in the Huffington Post:

Senate Democrats have begun discussions on a compromise approach to health care reform that would establish a robust, national public option for insurance coverage but give individual states the right to opt out of the program.

How such a system would work is still being debated, according to those with knowledge of the proposal. But theoretically, the “opt-out” approach would start with everyone having access to a public plan. What kind of public plan isn’t yet clear. States would then have the right to vote — either by referendum, legislature, or simply a gubernatorial decree — to make the option unavailable in their health care exchanges.

A simple thought experiment might clarify the issues at hand: What if Medicare had been passed with this ‘opt-out’ provision? To make the thought experiment more appropriate to the situation at hand, we must imagine that the 1965 law creating Medicare had already been subject to the same compromises that the public option has been: that its ability to negotiate with certain suppliers and providers has been negotiated away, and that instead of being available to all older Americans, access has been restricted so that only an estimated 5% of them are expected to join.

A plausible answer is that a number of states, especially in the South, would have chosen not to participate.

This appears to be a weak lame attempt to pacify as many Dems as possible with the chance that a 60 vote super majority can to reached……in other words, it is all about the vote not what is best for the people, who those voting have taken an oath to serve….did I miss something?  Is that not grounds to throw the ilk out of office?