(Please don't flame me) Question on the health ins

[BuffyR]

The huge problem with this line of thinking is that the United States is running out of money! We are passing a debt of ridiculous proportion to our children and grandchildren to pay off. That isn't just a soundbite - it's the God's honest truth. Social Security THIS YEAR is going to pay out more than it takes in. The CBO estimate (those smart guys!) BTW, was that this wouldn't happen until 2016. The United States credit rating is in serious threat of being downgraded from AAA status. Just like in personal finance, when your credit score goes down you pay higher interest rates.

There is no magical fountain of government money. Although those in office want to pretend there is. They have increased the amount of paper money in the system (printed new stuff) by trillions. The amount of money in the system was relatively flat until 2001 (see this handy Federal Reserve graph http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred...ion_date=2010-03-26&mma=0&nd=&ost=&oet=&fml=a when under Bush (yes he did make mistakes) the amount of money increased dramatically but since Obama took office the line has literally sprinted up the chart. We need to take lessons from the Weimar Republic in the 1920s and Venezuela over the last few decades.

The new American arrogance is that we can spend whatever we want whenever we want and the laws of economics will not ever effect us as it does other countries. We need to get our fiscal house in order or we will all be suffering - whether we have health insurance or not.

I'd be curious to see if any of the smart ladies (or gentlemen) out there can explain the increase of money in circulation. If I recall from Econ 101 it likely has something to do with the recession and monetary policy used to combat the recession. I can't say for sure, because I am not an economist and my memory from my college days is not very good. I do know, however, that while there are plenty of deficit hawks who want to blame the entire debt and deficit spending on Obama that is simply not the case. Here is a link that shows a break down of the current budget and deficit spending.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/what-caused-the-budget-deficit.php

I think it is also important to recognize that the Healthcare Reform Bill is fully funded. The CBO has projected that it actually brings down the deficit.

 

[dorothyrd]

Buffy, I am taking Econ 101 right now, and yes, one of the ways to combat recession is to circulate more currency, so it needs to be done. It is a strange concept to think about, but a weaker dollar actually helps exports and stimulates spending.

As I have said before, Massachusetts also said their plan would pay for itself, and it has not, so I really have no faith in what the CBO says and what the politicians say about this thing paying for itself. History has shown that government is usually wrong in their budgeting projections. Time will only tell.

Someone asked about premiums going up. The projections are that employee based plans will probably not see any raise, but if you have bought a plan individually, you could see about a 3% increase. The question would be, would you have seen that anyway. I don't have a crystal ball that changes the future to answer questions.

In reading more, it really seems regulation on premiums is coming soon, not 10 years. The thing to remember, the rules are not written yet. The states will be given a set of rules to set up the exchanges, and the states will be depending on to run the exchanges and make sure their insurance companies policies cover what needs to be covered by the not yet written rules. Premiums are part of this not yet written information, but states will be in charge of making sure that insurance companies do not raise premiums out of line(whatever out of line will be).

I still encourage everyone to take the time to read this thing and try and understand it instead of relying on what the right and left spin is telling you.

I took Speech two years ago, and in a type casting way, the teacher gave me Social Security as a topic(I was the oldest in the class). I did lots and lots of research on Social Security. We were not suppose to be in the state we are now with more going out than coming in, but 10% unemployment is difficult to predict, and that is the cause of this. If unemployment can get under control(and remember as far as economic predictors, unemployment is a lagging indicator, the last thing to show, and recover), then social security will right itself this year or next. Another thing you hear on the news today is not to worry about this because there is a surplus to draw on and it will last another 30 years. In my research I found that to indeed to be true, but the surplus just does not sit there waiting to be used. Our government is borrowing from it to pay for other things. As the surplus gets drawn down, the government will have to look for other sources to pay for things. Since government never seems to cut back, it would mean they have to borrow more from other sources, and raise our deficits more.

 

[DEEDEE2]

(my previous post)I couldn't agree more. My point is if we are going to go into debt then it needs to be a debt of quality like saving lives in this country, not destroying lives in other countries. It just surprises me that we are willing to dig ourselves into a deeper hole to do things that don't serve us in any way, but when we start to think about helping ourselves it is too expensive.

Well said!!!! ITA

Thank you Carola, but I know you could have worded that a hell of a lot better than I did.

 

[dorothyrd]

If the entitlements are not sustainable due to their cost, eventually they will have to be cut back. That is why it should have been smaller and addressed the immediate concerns of the uninsured, and spent less.

In Massachusetts, they have already starting cutting people off of the government insurance. Granted they are legal immigrants, but I have worked with many people who are immigrants, carrying a green card to work. They pay taxes, they work hard. So already the entitlement cannot carry through on the promises because it is too costly.

The things that are being put into place in the next 6-12 months is going to help a lot of uninsured, and under insured people, and the reason it is being done so quickly is because it costs the least.

I am not saying people should not get insured, people who are paying premiums faithfully should not have to deal with life time caps, and pre-existing illness clauses. These are good things being put into place. But there is much in this bill that is way too much government control and government spending and our country will pay for this dearly. The conservative side should have had more input into this, because it would have balanced things out a bit.

 

[hiitdogs]

(my previous post)I couldn't agree more. My point is if we are going to go into debt then it needs to be a debt of quality like saving lives in this country, not destroying lives in other countries. It just surprises me that we are willing to dig ourselves into a deeper hole to do things that don't serve us in any way, but when we start to think about helping ourselves it is too expensive.




Thank you Carola, but I know you could have worded that a hell of a lot better than I did.

Now that I disagree with

 

[BuffyR]

If the entitlements are not sustainable due to their cost, eventually they will have to be cut back. That is why it should have been smaller and addressed the immediate concerns of the uninsured, and spent less.

In Massachusetts, they have already starting cutting people off of the government insurance. Granted they are legal immigrants, but I have worked with many people who are immigrants, carrying a green card to work. They pay taxes, they work hard. So already the entitlement cannot carry through on the promises because it is too costly.

The things that are being put into place in the next 6-12 months is going to help a lot of uninsured, and under insured people, and the reason it is being done so quickly is because it costs the least.

I am not saying people should not get insured, people who are paying premiums faithfully should not have to deal with life time caps, and pre-existing illness clauses. These are good things being put into place. But there is much in this bill that is way too much government control and government spending and our country will pay for this dearly. The conservative side should have had more input into this, because it would have balanced things out a bit.

Dorothy, you appear to very well read up on this subject. Wasn't one of the problems in Mass is that cost controls were never the focal point from day one. I believe their entire issue was getting people insured and were not concered about the cost. Also Romney (yes, the same Romney is who now appalled by mandates he once advocated) refused to raise any form of tax to cover the cost. I may be wrong in my understanding, and I respect your take on it.

 

[dorothyrd]

Buffy, I will try and find out these things, because those are important points, and not raising taxes would be a selling point a Republican would do. Scott Brown also was involved in voting it in, but then ran on a ticket that seemed to say it was not a good idea.

Even if they did not raise taxes, my main point on showing that Massachusetts is spending more than expected is the expected part. Government put together numbers showing how the plan would be paid for, and the numbers were wrong. This is why I don't trust that the CBO is correct about their numbers. For me this is an honest concern. I am reading this bill and it is immense. I think you could tout it as a jobs bill, because this is going to add so many departments and jobs and actually jobs in the private sector as well as companies who can afford to, put into place the new regulations. Jobs in government and new regulation cost us more and more money.

One thing that is really hitting me as I read this bill a second time much more thoroughly. Much of the implementation of this thing will fall on the states. The feds have grant money available through 2015, or 2016(there is so many dates in this thing it gets confusing to remember) but then after that the states are suppose to have it in place and run it themselves.

Well, my state is completely and utterly broke. We rank up there as 2 or 3 as the states with the worse financial mess. Our lawmakers cannot even pass a budget, even though it is law they must have it. 3 years straight our common folk state workers(which includes our university people) have been threatened with not getting paid by July. Usually the state reaches into an "emergency" fund to pay their people. Our state also seems to breed corruption. It is a joke that those running for governor need to try on orange jump suits to see how they look before they take office. So this plan is going to add costs to our state(in the first years money will come in from the feds, which will brighten the people in Springfield's eyes), and our state is really bad about handling things like this.

So maybe that is how they plan on lowering the deficit federally, the cost lands on the states, and that is where we will see the big costs. I don't know, I just don't trust government numbers, it really does not seem like they know how to budget and stick to their dollar plan, and things really seem to always cost way more than expected(true in our personal lives to!).

Sure wish someone in Massachusetts would pipe in for or against, or explain the state's financial situation, but we have probably scared them away! I have one FB friend from Mass who really, really hates what it has done with Mass, and one FB who thinks it is not so bad. Bet you can guess which parties they are.

 

[dorothyrd]

Still hunting for information about the taxes in Mass, but I found this document which was written in December 2007. It is only 13 pages long and page 11 touches on sustainability issues. This plan is very, very similar to what will happen nationally, so check this out since it is only 13 pages, it might help people understand how this all will work.

Since Mass already has something in place, I imagine their implementation of the Federal plan will be very easy.

http://www.communitycatalyst.org/doc_store/publications/revisiting_MA_health_reform_dec07.pdf


I give up for now because I have other things I need to do today....
This was written in 2008 and is only 2 pages:
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7777.pdf

Grrrr I am not finding what I want, but here is a more recent study:
http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/100218_interim_report_card2.pdf

 

[double t]

The Bush hate runs deep. That's too bad because it's allowing people to let the current administration run amuck.
No one has yet answered my question as to what they think of Obama's outright lie at George Mason.....well, lie, or lack of knowledge of the subject matter. But, Bush is the dumb one..remember that. I think it comes down to Obama's charisma versus Bush's lack of charisma....not lack of brains.

 

[BuffyR]

The Bush hate runs deep. That's too bad because it's allowing people to let the current administration run amuck.
No one has yet answered my question as to what they think of Obama's outright lie at George Mason.....well, lie, or lack of knowledge of the subject matter. But, Bush is the dumb one..remember that. I think it comes down to Obama's charisma versus Bush's lack of charisma....not lack of brains.

You're just plain wrong. Insurance companies rescind policies all of the time. I explained about a case I had where the company did just that. They will look for minor mistakes in an insurance application as soon as you get sick cancel you policy. In the case I had, the insurer refunded the premium and then claimed the premium had never been paid and rescinded the policy. The HCR bill prohibits that.

There is a reason Bush hate runs deep. The damage he did to this country will be around for years to come. The wars, the debt, the torture, the lies. How can we not hate and resent a man that brought our country to a state of ruin? I honestly can't think of a single good thing Bush did in all the years he was president. I'm sure there is something but I can't remember one thing.

 

[joejack]

I don't understand why people assume President Obama is so "smart" compared to everyone else.

He has a reputation for being a great speaker, but all I hear from him is lofty rhetoric and talking points accompanied by a preacher's cadence....zzzzzzz boring! Tell us something substantial when you speak please!

I thought he was going to be so much more impressive than he has been. Yes, he's proven he can twist arms, and get legislation passed (with Pelosi's muscle!!)....but I would be far more impressed if he had actually passed a GOOD bill without the stench of corruption in it.

I agree that some Obama supporters hate Bush so much that they are unwilling to look at what this admiinistration is doing without their rose-colored glasses on.

He used up all of my goodwill. I can only hope someday we will get someone with some character and integrity back in charge of our country.

(Again, I was a supporter).

 

[morningstar]

See, here are the problems:

1. Obama is human
2. The American system of government is corrupt and ineffective

Because Obama accomplished the seemingly impossible- a person of colour becoming President of the racist United States of America - when he proved to not be able to also leap over tall buildings and catch bullets with his teeth, everyone was disappointed and started to trash him. There was NO WAY any President could have lived up to that kind of hype, given the paradigm in which he has to work. So people that supported him because he represented so much hope feel let down and people that didn't support him now have ammunition to use against him.

We love to build people up beyond any reasonable expectation and then jump on them when they are unable to live up to those unreasonable expectations. Sort of like when Tom Cruise jumped on the couch!

 

[hiitdogs]

I don't understand why people assume President Obama is so "smart" compared to everyone else.

You sound like you were a supporter

I don't think there is any question that Obama is smart. You don't get from nothing / humble beginnings to being the President of the Harvard Law Review and then become President of the United States. Connections and a well-known name is a different story but he had neither.

I think it is legitimate to not agree with him but I really don't think there is any serious doubt that that guy is extremely well read, smart and knows his stuff. Just thinking about that public discussion with the Republicans showed that he really knows what he is talking about and that without a teleprompter .

I was ROTFLMAO about your comments, Morningstar, catching a bullet with his teeth, now there is a reason to vote for a prez. ITA with what you said!!!! Good points!

 

[dr.mel_PT]

See, here are the problems:

1. Obama is human
2. The American system of government is corrupt and ineffective

Because Obama accomplished the seemingly impossible- a person of colour becoming President of the racist United States of America - when he proved to not be able to also leap over tall buildings and catch bullets with his teeth, everyone was disappointed and started to trash him. There was NO WAY any President could have lived up to that kind of hype, given the paradigm in which he has to work. So people that supported him because he represented so much hope feel let down and people that didn't support him now have ammunition to use against him.

We love to build people up beyond any reasonable expectation and then jump on them when they are unable to live up to those unreasonable expectations. Sort of like when Tom Cruise jumped on the couch!

ITA. Obama was basically set up to fail from the beginning. Before he took office, NOTHING publicized about him was negative. It was like everyone thought he was the 2nd coming. Then not even a month into office, people were complaining that he wasn't doing anything, why is the economy still so bad, why is unemployment still so low, etc etc. You can't fix these things with the snap of your fingers and Obama is no exception because he (obviously) is not the messiah. You put someone up that high, expecting all these things within the first couple of months, of course he is gonna come tumbling down.

That being said, I also agree that our gov't is extremely corrupt, and Obama is no exception to that either. I followed his campaign so closely and believed in everything he wanted to do for this country. I loved his passion and it really seemed like we were going to get a leader when he took office. BUT, he is a politician and most (if not all) politicians look out for their own interests once in office. I'm tired of hearing how Obama backed down on this and that, giving into platforms that he was flat-out against at the start of his presidency. It's all done to placate for votes in the next term. And I'm tired of it. I can't stand hearing about the greed and corruption from the people who lead our country. I really hate to say it, but it feels like why bother voting anymore since no one actually delivers what they say they will if it doesn't guarantee some sort of short-term benefit for those in command.

 

[joejack]

You sound like you were a supporter


I don't think there is any question that Obama is smart. You don't get from nothing / humble beginnings to being the President of the Harvard Law Review and then become President of the United States. Connections and a well-known name is a different story but he had neither.

I think it is legitimate to not agree with him but I really don't think there is any serious doubt that that guy is extremely well read, smart and knows his stuff. Just thinking about that public discussion with the Republicans showed that he really knows what he is talking about and that without a teleprompter .

I don't doubt he is smart, I just don't think he is smarter than everyone else. There are plenty of smart people in Washington, and he hasn't proven himself to be "brilliant" compared to Hiliary Clinton or Colin Powell for example. It's easy to seem smart compared to Bush.

I guess I was wishing for a Pres that was not only smart, but one who is wise, and has some integrity. Both of the things are sorely lacking in Pres Obama based on his campaign promises and the way he has governed so far.

Excellent post Meliffy 18! ITA!

BTW Carola...I wish you wouldn't question my integrity about supporting the President. I have real disappointment in what he is doing right now. I'm not able to blindly follow and defend just because he is who he is. If I support what I believe to be corrupt behavior just because it's my guy doing it or because the previous administration did the same types of things, how does that help when the next administration comes along and behaves the same way?

Why continue to set the bar so low that the corruption is just part of the process? That is NOT OK with me. He was supposed to be different and offer a new way of doing things in DC, or so he said in his campaign. I really was looking forward to some "change" and believed his lofty rhetoric. Now I know it's just that.... lofty rhetoric. Bummer for me.

 

[dr.mel_PT]

Does anyone know details about the FSA account clause? In 3 years they are capping FSA's at $2500 and limiting what they can be used for. I'm curious about what's not going to be allowed on it now besides OTC stuff.

 

[dorothyrd]

You basically have it right. Flex spending will be capped at 2500. Before there was no cap, although employers often did cap it. I believe starting in 2011 over the counter meds will not be able to be reimbursed through flex spending.

I actually read this and did not think much of it. I use flex, but even with my kids braces, which the cost was amortized over several years, I never took out that much. They have done studies on the use of flex, and found that 1400.00 is the average amount people take out a year and the OTC option is not utilized that much. It will have an impact on a few, and if you are the few using it, it will raise your taxes.

I know many people at work don't use the flex option because they are afraid of the use it or lose it way it works. I keep pretty good records, so know how much to put in it, and always am conservative, so I have usually used it by October or November. It is a good benefit and helps lower your taxable dollar.

 

[gettingfitmom]

My husband is self-employed (electrician) and has three full time employees. Two have families and one is single. He pays close to $900.00/month for the family guys health insurance (us included) and about $300.00 for the single guy. He doesn't have to do this, but these guys are good workers and he wants to keep them happy. This rate went up $300.00 from last year and will probably keep going up. Something needs to change. This being said I can see where people who don't have coverage would have a hard time paying for it with these ridiculous rates...

 

[double t]

Buffy, if you or anyone else has ever been dropped from their insurance plan strictly because they got sick and filed a claim, then you have a case against them. It is illegal in all 50 states to do that. If I am wrong with that statement, then so is Attorney Richard Giller, one of the nation's leading experts on insurance coverage. I've read several articles citing him on this subject.
The troop death count just doubled in Afghanistan recently......

 

[dorothyrd]

The pre-existing issue also can be fought. If you have always carried insurance and evidence of insurability, an insurance company cannot deny your claim based on pre-existing illness. If you have a lapse of coverage, then they can.

We actually played around with the idea of dropping coverage on our daughter when she was sick, because her hospitalizations were actually cheaper than the COBRA we were on during my husbands unemployment. One thing that prevented us from doing that was losing that continuous coverage. It turned out to be worth it. Once he got employment, and we were covered under his new employers insurance, my daughter was hospitalized, and they tried to throw out the charges because of pre-existing illness. They had no leg to stand on, because we had kept all the paperwork proving she had continuous insurance.