September 15, 2009

Old spin, new spin on health care reform.

Old Spin: Nobody’s Talking About Killing Granny!

New Spin: What’s Wrong With Killing Granny?

Plus, Old Spin: Nobody’s Talking about Health Care for Illegals!

New Spin: What’s Wrong With Health Care for Illegals?

90 comments:

Jason (the commenter) said...

These sudden swings are what you get when you aren't engaging in substantial debate, but rhetoric. They are issues we need to talk about, too bad none of the Democratic healthcare reformers are willing to.

From Inwood said...

Next

Old Spin: Nobody’s Talking about Health Care for Abortions!

New Spin: What’s Wrong With Health Care for Abortions?


Then:

Old Spin: Nobody’s Talking about Health Care for Viagra!

New Spin: What’s Wrong With Health Care for Viagra?

From Inwood said...

BTW

Neo-Natal Intensive Care is a big Medicare/Medicaid/Insurance expense. Where's Dean Swift when one needs him re neo-natal care expense?

former law student said...

Personally, I don't want the illegals picking my salad ingredients, or the illegals chopping them up in restaurant kitchens, to have communicable diseases. Your mileage may vary.

(Boiled salad, anyone?)

Rialby said...

On the illegal immigration and healthcare issue, Instapundit got a very good response from a doctor - what am I supposed to do if someone shows up at the ER with a heart attack but they're here illegally? Not treat them? Not going to happen.

And this is why sane people have been screaming about this issue forever. You cannot have open borders and a social welfare state. It will not work. Read Steyn's piece from last week that speaks to the % of AIDS patients treated in the UK that are not citizens of the UK -- 44%!

Chip Ahoy said...

Old spin: You can keep your insurance if you like it.
New spin: Our plan will put insurers out of business.

Old spin: You can keep your primary physicians and your own specialists.
New spin: Appointments, test, results will be delayed for months.

Old spin: This program will be budget neutral.
New spin: Within ten years the budget explodes.

Old spin: The bill must contain a public option.
New spin: OK fine! Let's call it a coöp instead.

Old spin: It's inexcusable for a nation this wealthy to have 47 million uninsured
New spin: OK fine. Make that 30 million.
New new spin: Ok fine! Some of them are self insured, and others choose not to have insurance.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Old spin: It's inexcusable for a nation this wealthy to have 47 million uninsured because they're dying in the streets or something.

New spin: Old spin: It's inexcusable for a nation this wealthy to have 30 million uninsured because we can't get our hands on their money that way.

PatHMV said...

fls... then why aren't you angry at President Obama and the House Democrats, for having the language quoted by President Obama in the bill to begin with? You know, the language that says so emphatically that illegal aliens are not to receive these benefits?

Old Dad said...

For such a serious issue, the flip flops demonstrate just how unserious, or perhaps incompetent, or perhaps cynical this administration and this Congress truly are.

What really is being debated? The President's plan? What plan? The House version? Which one and has anybody really read it? The Senate version? I get the impression that we're witnessing a massive three card monte scam and we're the suckers.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Old spin: We're going to save money by introducing a public plan that's efficient like Medicare.

New spin: We're going to save money by cutting out all the waste and fraud in Medicare.

former law student said...

then why aren't you angry at President Obama and the House Democrats

My suggestion for immigration reform is that anyone who hires an illegal alien will be expelled along with him.

Chip Ahoy said...

You know what? I mean, in all honesty, all fun'n aside, I've never understood this, and I've pondered it ever since I was a little boy (I was always such a serious little shit, overly and unnaturally burdened with serious thinky-thoughts) why isn't healthcare socialized equally for everybody no matter what? If a person is here in the US, wealthy as it is in aggregate, under any circumstances and something happens to them then they should be taken care of. It's only human. This talk of who pays for what and how much for whom runs counter to basic humanity.

Those are the thoughts of a boy and I haven't abandoned them.

While I'm on it, another boyish line of thought pondered over, since education is so important and considered so high a value, why isn't it also socialized for as long as any person chooses be educated through the doctorate level for however many doctorates one chooses to accumulate? Why is education so expensive? Why is education so exclusive? Com'on. Especially in this internet age, why isn't online education free and accredited? The liberal, humane portion of my self, say my childish self, will not let go of these ponderous questions.

There. I said it. I'm a socialist.

Here's the thing: I have available to me more healthcare than I ever wanted to use. At times the battery of tests imposed on me were worse than the affliction. And I have more education available to me than I can possibly use in one lifetime. So why isn't that available to everybody? Why? It makes my internal boy's little heart break thinking other people are excluded for financial reasons.

As an adult I sort of know why, but I don't like it, and I still visualize a different civilization.

traditionalguy said...

The biggest spin (lie) of all is that no Congress person knows what is in any of the 5 bills being shuffled around on the table, and that therefore they have no accountability. That is the old "every one knows that we are too dumb and lazy to be blamed for anything" defense. Yet these plans have been refined in secret by Democrat leadership for 17 years at a minimum. They are all liars on Reform of health care, except for Joe Wilson and a few others fighting it.

PatHMV said...

fls... nice change of subject. But we're talking about health care reform. Does the bill provide medical benefits to illegal aliens or not? If not, but you think it should, why are you not criticizing the President's plan? If it does provide such coverage, than Joe Wilson and others were correct. You can't blame Republicans for not covering illegal aliens; that was always in the Democrats' bill.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Within the same post, Instapundit--

Old spin: Democrats are flip-flopping all over the place and why are we even talking about health care?

New Spin (update): Oh yeah, anyone with half a brain who spends half a minute thinking about it will realize that the problems are real and all the useless Republican demagoguery in the world isn't going to fix it.

If there were a Republican president, we wouldn't even be talking about health care!

Leland said...

Why?

Because something isn't valuable when its free.

That may sound trite, but its a fact. As Rialby points out, Glenn got a good comment from a Doctor regarding illegal aliens. The point is excellent, and useful to Socialists who are likely to ignore the open border issue. But as the doctor is required to provide care for free, then what is in it for them? You get the great care, but they get? You get the great education, but they get?

Is it noble to make exceptions from earning money for those who are in real need? Certainly. But if that is no longer an exception, than the quality of what is provided will go down dramatically. But certainly, I wish utopia existed as well. And I'm sure I just preached to a choir member.

wv fluts failed flautists.

Scott said...

PayHMV,

The supporters of the House bill can rightly say (as Obama did) that the bill states that illegal immigrants do not qualify.

The opponents of the House bill argue not that the above is false, but that the bill guts/prevents anyone from checking the status of a patient, which makes the above pointless.

The point that the doctor makes on Instapundit is valid (we expect them to do the work, we just don't want to pay for it). Explicitly or implicitly allowing reimbursement will simply provide incentives for more illegals to come.

I do not have an answer. I might consider reimbursing emergency care, but not routine or chronic care. It would be cheaper to buy them a ticket home if they are safe to travel. Does that sound heartless? I imagine to many it will.

Is it any less heartless to hang a sign out "Free Healthcare if you can get here" and we will burden the taxpayers for it? See how well that worked in my home state of Tennessee under TennCare. We accepted everyone and performed no residency checks (people even registered using PO Boxes). It exploded the costs and killed the program.

Henry said...

New Spin: What’s Wrong With Health Care for Illegals?

If you link through to Instapundit and link through to E.J. Dionne you find that E.J. Dionne somehow manages to castigate conservatives for hating illegal immigrants while exonerating Obama for promising conservatives that he wasn't going to cover them.

If Joe Wilson had yelled out "You belie your own principles," would Dionne had backed him up?

My own opinion is a) you have to cover illegal immigrants just as you have to let their kids go to school -- it's immoral to bar people living and working in our midst from basic services whatever their status -- and b) coverage of illegal immigrants is the least of the problems with the Demoncrats' various proposals. Community rating, guaranteed issue, and mandatory enrollment will lock in all the cost inefficiencies we know now, then fuel them with all debt the Feds can invent. The result will be coverage that none of us can afford and our kids will pay for.

Montagne Montaigne said...

I can GUARANTEE that the administration would like to help doctors with the costs of treating illegal immigrants like the doctor in Instapundit's post. But they CANT because jerkoff race-baiting Republicans and pundits would tear them to pieces over it.

Scott said...

Montagne Montaigne said...
Within the same post, Instapundit--

Old spin: Democrats are flip-flopping all over the place and why are we even talking about health care?

New Spin (update): Oh yeah, anyone with half a brain who spends half a minute thinking about it will realize that the problems are real and all the useless Republican demagoguery in the world isn't going to fix it.


Is it demagoguery to suggest that we should allow people to buy across state lines? Or to extend the same tax benefits (deduction of insurance costs from AGI) to people who insurance outside their workplace? Or to consider tort reform? Or expand availability of health savings accounts?

If there were a Republican president, we wouldn't even be talking about health care!

Even though I voted for McCain, I fear he would have already compromised with the Democrats and something would have already passed.

The Drill SGT said...

Montagne Montaigne said...
If there were a Republican president, we wouldn't even be talking about health care!


I seem to recall Bush spent a lot of capital on Social Security Reform and got demonized by Dems.

He passed Medicare Part D (Drug Benefit) against some level of GOP resistance to another underfunded mandate to a bankrupt program

Scott said...

Montagne Montaigne said...
I can GUARANTEE that the administration would like to help doctors with the costs of treating illegal immigrants like the doctor in Instapundit's post.


This would be the same government that is trying to reduce Medicare reimbursements to doctors today?


But they CANT because jerkoff race-baiting Republicans and pundits would tear them to pieces over it.

Classy.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Old Dad,
"For such a serious issue, the flip flops demonstrate just how unserious, or perhaps incompetent, or perhaps cynical this administration and this Congress truly are."

It was obvious in the campaign that Obama and staff were either dishonest or very stupid/naive.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Everyone is STILL confusing health insurance with health care.

If illegals are not covered under the health insurance program, this does not mean that they won't still get care. They will. All they have to do is show up at the ER and they get health care.

In fact, they would be stupid to try to pay for or get onto the government insurance program, when they can just get the same coverage for free.

While the rest of us who pay taxes will have our premiums automatically taken (without our permission) from our bank accounts or from our tax returns, or we have to pay penalties collected through the IRS......the illegal who works for cash and isn't part of the system will get a free ride.

This cost will be passed along to the rest of us who DO pay through rationing or higher than anticipated premiums in the so called single payer option.

In other words some of us pay and pay and others who are here illegally will get the benefits without paying.

knox said...

These sudden swings are what you get when you aren't engaging in substantial debate, but rhetoric. They are issues we need to talk about, too bad none of the Democratic healthcare reformers are willing to.

Excellent point. I will add that the claims that the plan isn't going to cover illegals or ration care were lies in the first place.

Old Dad said...

M and M,

You are under the misapprehension that the Administration can help Doctors with the cost of treating illegals. The Administration can only ask Congress to allocate our tax dollars to said costs.

Presently, we already pay for said costs. Hospitals must pass those costs on to us through higher prices, ergo higher premiums.

A more focused debate would begin with a discussion of whether or not we want to pay for illegals. If yes, then what is the most efficient way to do that.

BJM said...

Obama says he won't kill Granny; he lied.

"If enacted as scheduled on Jan. 1, 2010, policy changes recommended by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) -- the government's insurer for the elderly and disabled -- will severely cut current Medicare reimbursements to cardiologists and oncologists for critical care services that are provided to patients in physicians' offices or other out-of-hospital setting, such as chemotherapy to treat cancer, and various cardiac procedures to monitor and treat heart disease, such as nuclear imaging and heart catheterization.

These cuts will force cardiologists and oncologists to limit care to their Medicare patients, withdraw from treating Medicare patients altogether or require their patients to pay more out of pocket to make up the difference in the cost of these services.

Unless these proposed changes are rescinded, current and future cardiac and cancer care patients will suffer the consequences, especially in rural areas where the proportion of Medicare patients is exceptionally high and patients have fewer choices of health care providers. "
[ my bolding]

The Dems are breaking their pact with seniors, so how can we trust them with health care for the rest of us?

BJM said...

Then there's the big lie of cost savings:

"The Senate Finance Committee is contemplating a $40 billion excise tax on medical device and diagnostics products. AdvaMed strongly supports the Committee's health care reform efforts and has worked cooperatively with Congressional leaders to advance the goals of health care reform; however this medical device tax is bad policy that AdvaMed opposes.

The tax will raise health care costs. It would be assessed against thousands of products ranging from eyeglasses to stethoscopes to a hospital beds to artificial heart valves to advanced diagnostic equipment. Such a tax would in turn increase costs for consumers, physician practices, hospitals, and patients.. While on paper it may help balance a Congressional Budget Office scorecard, the real effect will be to raise health care costs-exactly the opposite of a key goal of health reform."

rhhardin said...

One easy cost-saving fix is expanding who is able to provide medical services beyond doctors.

miller said...

The President isn't lying; the mere fact that he says something is true makes it true, even if it contradicts earlier statements he made.

I mean, this is the guy that successfully beat Hillary by accusing her of pushing for universal mandates -- and here he is, pushing for universal mandates.

Does the irony meter go past 10?

Angst said...

Old spin: It is immoral to allow 47 million Americans to be without health insurance.

New spin: We will fix the problem by allowing the IRS to fine you up to $3,800 unless you buy health insurance.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

New spin: We will fix the problem by allowing the IRS to fine you up to $3,800 unless you buy health insurance.


My spin:
1. $3800 is cheaper than buying health insurance.

2. Working for cash and being under the radar is looking better all the time.

3. How do I sign up to be an illegal alien?

rhhardin said...

My spin:
1. $3800 is cheaper than buying health insurance.

True, but you don't have the health insurance, the value of which to you ought to be subtracted out from the $3800.

There will be a big market for $3800 health insurance, ought to be the result.

Angst said...

rhh: "One easy cost-saving fix is expanding who is able to provide medical services beyond doctors."

Reminds me of the news article awhile back about a guy going door to door offering free breast exams ;->

wv: kencials - med clinics set up in dog kennels

Rialby said...

DBQ - you couldn't be more correct. What point is there in being a citizen? Think about what kind of lifestyle you might be able to attain if you came here illegally, received payment in cash, paid no taxes, hired other illegal aliens, etc. I'm sure there's a downside.... still thinking.

Rialby said...

angst... free breast exams.

Too apropos

Just Lurking said...

RE: BJM's comment: "The tax will raise health care costs."

Anecdote: a medical device for asthma - essentially just a plastic tube with rubber gaskets- costs $46 at a medical supply store. I found the exact same product at an on-line medical supply company for $9.

I called my health insurance company and asked if they would reimburse me if I bought on-line. They said no, I had to buy from an approved brick-and-mortar medical supply store, and pay a copay of $29.

What did I do? I faxed the prescription, and bought the product an online. Checked with my doctor and it was the exact same brand he had prescribed.

My doctor expressed some concern that the product could be used, or counterfeit. Yes, there is always a "buyer beware" side to the free market. I decided to take my chances.

The product I ordered was delivered in 3 days, shrink-wrapped, and perfectly functional. The free market saved me approx. $20.

The Drill SGT said...

DBQ said...3. How do I sign up to be an illegal alien?

Well you could immigrate to the EU and take up residence in say, Germany. They have great health care, the trains run on time, etc...

oh wait, you'd be a Gastarbeiter (Guest worker), and so would your grand kids and theirs. No citizenship for thee, no health care, no welfare, etc.

And here you thought it was was only those Nativist right winger Americans that denied citizenship to the huddled masses... How could Social Democrats be that hard hearted?

What would Tom Friedman do?

kentuckyliz said...

Send the bill for the health care of illegal aliens to their home countries, most of which have socialized health care.

Those countries would work hard to keep their people home because they don't want to pay for great, formerly free American health care.

Illegals signing up for Obamacare will never qualify for American citizenship, because they lied and signed a document saying they were an American citizen...and they have to fess up on the application for naturalization.

That's cruel.

WV foricen
medicine for foreigners

BJM said...

@fls the problem with illegals handling your salad is not a lack of health care but ignorance of modern sanitation practices such as hand washing after using the loo, touching their mouths or noses and avoiding cross contamination in food prep and handling.

Most of the kitchen prep work now days is done by under-educated immigrants, legal or illegal and the same sanitation issues arise no matter their nationality.

Just Lurking said...

RE: my previous post:

The conversation with my health insurance company took place in the medical supply store, so those guys know they lost a sale. They agreed with me that I should buy it on-line. A rational businessman does not outrageously jack-up prices in an open market. He can't; he will run out of customers. Something is wrong here.

If Obama wanted to launch an investigation to discover why medical supply stores are charging $46 for a $9 product, I'd support him. I contend the cost differences are due to taxes and existing bureaucratic overhead. As such, I don't believe when Obama says adding more bureaucracy to an already inefficient system, will bring down costs.

Synova said...

A real store also has a whole lot more overhead. Maybe not enough to make that big a difference in price but they have to pay people to be there, even when the store is empty and have to have all the items anyone *might* need on the shelves just in case.

And undoubtedly there is a good deal of inflation due to the fact that they know that no one (much) is paying for anything with their "own" money.

Sort of like college teachers who change books for a class and never give a second thought to how now all the students will have to buy new and can't borrow the book from a friend or buy used. After all, the college students are getting money for books. Right?

Matt said...

Misleading links...again. Goodness! You guys do anything to keep the right wing salivating.

Seven Machos said...

You can't have liberty and have the government taking over the health care industry, or any other industry. You can't have abundance, either. It's really easy to figure this out.

Also, I'm not sure why the left keeps bringing up illegal immigrants. Do you think it helps you with the hoi polloi?

bearbee said...

Here is another**sigh** plan:

FRAMEWORK FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH REFORM

This document constitutes a framework of a plan for consideration by the Bipartisan Six....

Seven Machos said...

Shorter Matt: YOU LIE!

Matt said...

Three-Quarters of doctors support public plan.

However Three-Quarters of Republicans seem just fine with doing nothing and keeping Health care costs unreasonably high.

Yet, if we do get a public plan three-quarters of the tea baggers would use the public option. Truth.

Seven Machos said...

Matt: Sixty percent of voters are opposed to Obama's government takeover of the health care industry.

bearbee said...

...seem just fine with doing nothing and keeping Health care costs unreasonably high.

Policyholders could pay more under Obama plan

If President Barack Obama gets what he wants in his health care plan — covering all Americans and barring insurers from denying coverage — some analysts say individuals could wind up paying higher premiums.

The Obama plan would impose new costs on insurance companies, which would probably then raise the prices customers pay for coverage. Employers also would likely pass on some of their higher costs to employees.

bearbee said...

Oops.....link

Policyholders could pay more under Obama plan

Pogo said...

The following will be awesome under Obamacare:
Graft and waste and fraud and crony capitalism and VIP queue-jumping and bureaucratic quicksand traps and combined IRS-Medicare privacy destruction that will make the DMV seem like a goddamned utopia.

Welcome to the United States of Chicago.

former law student said...

why the left keeps bringing up illegal immigrants.

why did Glenn Reynolds link to the Dionne column? Why was the care for illegals the one issue that prompted a spontaneous outburst from a Republican?

Why are illegals an issue? They come here for work. The "will work for food" guy at the freeway off ramp is some white guy with a substance abuse problem. He's not planning to bust his ass for a few dollars. The Mexican waiting at Home Depot to jump in some guy's pickup is going to give a day's work for a day's pay.

Seven Machos said...

FLS: I'm not arguing the merits of illegal immigration or the quality of the people who do it. I'm pointing out that the issue is an absolute disaster to bring up if you support Obama because it riles up so many people.

Matt said...

Steven Macho
60% opposed?
First, where do you get your info? Give me a link that isn't World Net Daily or something not related to a major non-partisan polling. Like this one that shows 55% support 42% oppose.

Second, a certain percentage of liberals don't approve because it is not a Universal plan or may not have a public option.
So if 60% is true [and I don't think it is] it does not mean they agree with your view - which I am guessing is to do absolutely nothing to fix a health care and insurance system that is ripping you off every day.

Seven Machos said...

I've never been to World Net Daily in my life. Somehow, however, I suspect that a website called Think Progress might not be a wholly objective news source.

Good luck passing Obama's non-bill.

former law student said...

the issue is an absolute disaster to bring up if you support Obama because it riles up so many people.

Obama pretty much has to address it -- it's not as if you ignore it it will go away.

For example, everybody from Anaheim south is pretty convinced Mexican women come here in the ninth month of pregnancy to have an anchor baby at American expense.
Health care for illegals will continue to be a burr under their saddle blankets.

Pogo said...

"The Mexican waiting at Home Depot to jump in some guy's pickup is going to give a day's work for a day's pay."

In the country illegally.
For under minimum wage, a law set by liberals, illegally.
Not paying income taxes, illegally.
Not paying SSI and Medicare, illegally.
Committing crimes in this country, and scooting back to Mexico to avoid punishment.
Getting school and health care for free.

JAL said...

DBQ and others --

Is the $3800 fine per person or per family?

If we were a family of 3 -- couple with one kid -- would that be 3 X $3800?

$11,400 fine a year?

Just wondering.

PatHMV said...

fls... I'm not arguing illegal immigration and the merits of such with you. I'd probably agree with you on much of your last comment. But one of two things MUST logically be true.

Either Joe Wilson was correct and the existing bill provided coverage to illegal aliens, OR Joe Wilson was incorrect, and the existing bill did NOT provide coverage to illegal aliens. If the former is true, then he was right to call the President a liar, and the President was spinning, and refusing to engage in honest debate about what the bill does. If the latter is true, then the President and the Democratic leadership in Congress (they control 60% of the Senate and 58% of the House) CHOSE not to provide coverage to illegal immigrants. You pick. You can't have it both ways. If illegal aliens aren't covered as it is, the only people to blame are the President and the Democratic leadership for not putting such coverage in the bill.

Matt said...

Steven Machos

Think Progress did not do the poll. They simply cite it. The poll was conducted by Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. They surveyed, by mail and by phone, 2,130 doctors.

Again, where are you getting the 60% opposition to the [or a] Democratic health care plan? You must have read it somewhere, right? Unless you made it up?

former law student said...

PatHMV: I think the House Bill 3200 purports that no illegal will get coverage under it. But once enacted, illegals will get health care, one way or another, just as they do now. Further, we will end up paying for it, one way or another, just as we do now.

Seven Machos said...

Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York

There's a trusted polling organization, especially given its location.

In other news, Gallup will not be performing liver transplants and open heart surgery.

Good luck with your non-bill.

Matt said...

former law student
PatHMV

Just what kind of cost are we talking about regarding the potential to have illegal immigration health care? I know emergency rooms cannot turn people away. And at this point emergency room care is far more expensive than regular doctor visits. AND we pay for the uninsured and underinsured when they use emergency rooms.
So, if this bill included coverage for illegals it might be less than the cost is now. Right?
But maybe you have some figures on this?

Matt said...

Steven Machos

Well, we know you're not serious now. Cause, you know, New York doctors don't count... or something?

Thanks for playing. Carry on....

bearbee said...

Either Joe Wilson was correct and the existing bill provided coverage to illegal aliens, OR Joe Wilson was incorrect, and the existing bill did NOT provide coverage to illegal aliens.

From HR 3200:
HR3200

Sec. 246. No Federal payment for undocumented aliens.

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED
4 ALIENS.
5 Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
6 for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
7 not lawfully present in the United States.


Not clear on the meaning and intent of affordability credits.

Seven Machos said...

Four out of five dentists survey prefer Trident gum for their patients who chew gum.

That was Gallup. Right?

Pogo said...

I say treat the illegal immigrant in the ER, and then put him in a bus and take him back home.

And build a wall.
And fine employers for hiring illegals.

Balfegor said...

Either Joe Wilson was correct and the existing bill provided coverage to illegal aliens, OR Joe Wilson was incorrect, and the existing bill did NOT provide coverage to illegal aliens.

Strictly speaking, the main part of the bill isn't designed to provide coverage to anything. There is a modest expansion of Medicaid, I think, which could potentially cover illegal immigrants, but that's a sideshow to the main business of the bill, which is taxes punishing people who don't get health insurance up to the standard mandated in the bill.

When they refer to affordability credits, they're referring to a subsidy, provided through the Health Insurance Exchanges, to enable people to purchase health insurance they would otherwise be unable to afford (or would otherwise prefer not to buy -- the subsidies continue up to 400% of the poverty level). This is covered in Subtitle C, starting with Sec. 241 of the House bill.

All this is kind of beside the point, though -- the reason Obama was lying (or at least being highly misleading) was that there is no enforcement mechanism for Sec. 246, leaving it an empty prohibition. The Administration more or less conceded that Wilson was correct by putting out some bullets Friday evening indicating that there should be a verification program, such as SAVE, to weed out illegal aliens. Republicans had in fact offered an amendment providing for just such verification, but it was defeated in the Ways and Means committee back in July, on a straight party-line vote.

Big Mike said...

I can confirm what Balfegor said about the lack of enforcement provisions and the defeat on party-line vote of Republican efforts to put them in place.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@JAL regarding the fines. This is the proposal so far.

Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.


The cheapest health coverage I can quote for myself and my husband (who can't get insurance anyway...pre existing conditions) Runs about $6000 a year. This is with a $10,400 per family deductible. We would have to spend up to $10,400 before full coverage is instituted. This is a catastrophic only insurance plan.

Obama's plan is to make this type of insurance unavailable to the public.

The best coverage, comparable to the coverage that the Unions, Public Employees or Congress gets runs about $29,500 a year With a $7000 per family out of pocket cap and a $1000 per family. (That is for two people. Not a family. Now granted, we aren't spring chickens anymore, but still!!! )

The Cadillac plan above is paid for by our taxes for Public Government workers and extorted from their employers by the Unions.

These people will NOT lose their coverage unlike the small business workers whose employers are going to drop them like hot potatoes as soon as they can.

eeewww. verification word = glans

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Not clear on the meaning and intent of affordability credits.


Subsidizing the lower incomes to be able to afford the premiums. Either with reduced premiums or possibly tax credits. I don't think they have decided this through.

If it is tax credits then it just means that the people who don't pay taxes already, will get money from the people who do pay taxes. Just like the child credit etc.

chickenlittle said...

DBQ said: Obama's plan is to make this type of insurance {high deductible] unavailable to the public.

That's the main reason I'm opposed to the new plan. It punishes rational behavior.

rhhardin said...

Con men understand that their job is not to use facts to convince skeptics but to use words to help the gullible to believe what they want to believe. No message has been more welcomed by the gullible, in countries around the world, than the promise of something for nothing. That is the core of Barack Obama's medical care plan.

Thomas Sowell.

Just Lurking said...

@synova

Perhaps a large cost-saving for online medical supply sites, is the cost of labor. Things like website updates, faxes, email, phone calls, can be outsourced to places like India.

"And undoubtedly there is a good deal of inflation due to the fact that they know that no one (much) is paying for anything with their "own" money."

There may be some of this going on. They can charge a higher price because they know the insurance will cover most or all of it ( depending on a person's policy). And they rely on uninformed consumers who have high co-pays, not realizing they can buy it off the internet cheaper.

It occurred to me that a better question is, why do the insurance companies agree to pay the inflated prices? Probably due to a regulation that says they have to pay out to "authorized" vendors only.

The result of limiting competition in the market to select vendors allows those vendors to raise their prices.

PatHMV said...

Balfegor, that's quite correct, and I am well aware of those details.

What I've been seeing is liberals like fls criticizing the GOP for claiming that the President was lying when he said that illegal aliens would not get benefits, while simultaneously saying that illegal aliens SHOULD be covered, and perhaps even would get benefits under the bill. My comment was aimed at showing exactly how duplicitous such folks are being. If you believe that illegal aliens should be covered, you should logically criticize the President for not including them. Or if you believe, as FLS has just admitted, that they will be covered under the current bill, one way or another, then you have to admit that, rude or not, Joe Wilson was right when he called the President a liar.

BJM said...

From what I can deduce, and the information changes constantly, is the Wilson flap exposed a loophole that proof of citizenship would not be required to participate in exchanges or a govt option.

I'm not sure what that means, will only a SS# and picture ID be required as it is now with govt programs and private coverage? if so then an illegal would not have a SS account/number.

Another question; what happens to the uninsured,and the 14,000 a day who lose their health insurance until the bill becomes law?

A four year wait to replace lost or denied insurance coverage is unacceptable, especially in a crisis.

Any one? Bueller?

Seven Machos said...

Another question; what happens to the uninsured,and the 14,000 a day who lose their health insurance until the bill becomes law?

Incredibly dubious statistics notwithstanding, they should probably purchase health insurance. Alternatively, they should be extra careful when crossing the street. Even if they live cavalier lives, though, most of them -- young and virile -- will not need health care.

Also, dude, you should stop trying to deduce. You suck at it.

From Inwood said...

Rationing, anyone?

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

By TERRY JONES

News Analysis by IBD | Posted Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:30 PM PT

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

*************

This experience [a cut in back services and coverage] has been repeated in other countries where a form of nationalized care is common. In particular, many nationalized health systems seem to have trouble finding enough doctors to meet demand.

In Britain, a lack of practicing physicians means the country has had to import thousands of foreign doctors to care for patients in the National Health Service.

"A third of (British) primary care trusts are flying in (general practitioners) from as far away as Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland" because of a doctor shortage, a recent story in the British Daily Mail noted.

British doctors, demoralized by long hours and burdensome rules, simply refuse to see patients at nights and weekends.

Likewise, Canadian physicians who have to deal with the stringent rules and income limits imposed by that country's national health plan have emigrated in droves to other countries, including the U.S.

*****************
BTW, But what do you call an office-holder politician who defends insurance companies’ practices? An ex-office holder.

First law of pols re Insurance:

Demonization of private health insurance in pursuit of a broad agenda of government expansion is no vice & moderation in the pursuit of social justice for the 47 million, OOPS, make that 30 million, uninsured is no virtue.

Straying from strict facts (a/k/a, lying) in pursuit of a broad agenda of government expansion is no vice & moderation in the description of anecdotal evidence in pursuit of social justice for those who had their policies revoked is no virtue.

OK, two laws.

Balfegor said...

Re: BJM:

A four year wait to replace lost or denied insurance coverage is unacceptable, especially in a crisis.

Wait, is this a criticism of the status quo, or the House bill? Because I don't know whether it's true of the status quo, but I know it's true of the House bill. Look at Sec. 100(c)(25) - indicating that Y1 in the plan is 2013, so the Health Insurance Exchanges, affordability credits, and all the other rube-goldberg paraphernalia of the statute don't kick in until 2013.

BJM said...

@Macho - Aha! therein lies the rub... if you have been denied coverage you cannot buy it and will not be eligible for Obamacare until 2013.

The unisured sympathy ploy is emotional blackmail, pure and simple.

@Balfegor - The status quo is that if you're denied coverage you're screwed. The House bill screws you until 2013.

Seven Machos said...

Sorry, BJM. I thought you were an idiot. But I was.

Revenant said...

Well, no, the status quo isn't that if you're denied coverage you're screwed. The status quo is that if you're denied coverage, you have to pay for medical care yourself.

You are "screwed" the way a person who wants to buy a $500,000 on his $40,000 salary is "screwed".

Pogo said...

Mebbe we should adopt the Andy Warhol Healthcare Plan:
In the future, everyone will be insured for 15 minutes.

bearbee said...

Updated comparison of the 3 major health care proposals

The total cost is a joke.

Government stinks at cost projections as evidence by Medicare.

Are Health Care Reform Cost Estimates Reliable?

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the
new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. viii
Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.ix


After 10 years the cost would spiral upward

bearbee said...

Need clarification.

re: Government subsidy under HR 3200 - Available to households earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level.

Current poverty level for a family of 4 is $22,050.

Does this mean a subsidiary allowed if a family of 4 earns up to $88,200?

Balfegor said...

@Balfegor - The status quo is that if you're denied coverage you're screwed. The House bill screws you until 2013.

I was pointing out that -- even if you believe the status quo screws you over -- no one is proposing a plan to solve the 4-year problem identified in your post.

bearbee said...

O drops support of health care reform plan .

bearbee said...

That's 'O' for Olympia!

Heh, heh. heh

former law student said...

if so then an illegal would not have a SS account/number.


Sure illegals get SS cards/numbers. Does anyone verify that they're the one and only authorized user of a real FICA account? Probably not.

Google "Social Security number fraud" for more.
http://unheardnomore.blogspot.com/2009/03/social-security-cards-for-sale-fake.html

Sophie said...

Health care reform is very important, however, there are some resources out there under our current plan that I believe most are not aware of out side of medicare or medicaid that helps pay for medical expenses.

Believe it or not there is a well kept secret out there. Money is actually set aside for those who don't have insurance, or who need more insurance. You just have to know where to look and what questions to ask. If you want to learn more about available funding check this site out.
www.crwenterprise.com/insure