what do you think obama care is?

Post #382,291 by boxley 10/17/13 10:45:26 AM Reply	what do you think obama care is? It gives you a tax credit to buy insurance or makes you pay a fine if you don't. All the time destroying decent healthcare plans by pushing the deductibles into the thousands of dollars for a family while keeping the monthly costs the same. Unless you are in a Union or a government employee then you are exempt. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #382,292 by drook 10/17/13 10:58:59 AM Reply	Was there anything about what was covered? eg: Pre-existing conditions? Requirements to cover regardless of prior medical history? -- Drew
Post #382,293 by boxley 10/17/13 11:06:27 AM Reply	yes Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #382,294 by Another Scott 10/17/13 12:20:43 PM Reply	Meh. There were lots of health care reform proposals in the 2000s. http://en.wikipedia....#Bush_era_debates Bush's was weak. It wouldn't have covered (nearly) everyone. It was full of magic asterisks. http://www.washingto...29-2004Aug21.html It was yet-more-tax-cuts-will-solve-everything, let-the-private-market-solve-the-problem, do-everything-we-can-to-keep-a-sensible-universal-plan-from-being-implemented plan. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #382,300 by boxley 10/17/13 3:48:45 PM Reply	"Affordable Choices" grants ring a bell? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #382,314 by folkert 10/17/13 9:17:51 PM Reply	HAHAHAHA! -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #382,319 by boxley 10/18/13 12:25:40 AM Reply	tea party chimes in Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #382,333 by folkert 10/18/13 11:10:44 AM Reply	Not a tea party member, if you haven't noticed. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #382,357 by drook 10/18/13 4:55:30 PM Reply	It didn't But since this thread hasn't died yet I thought I'd go look it up. Here's the story: http://www.democrati...dress=102x2744259 Bush spotlights rising health care costs By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 48 minutes ago WASHINGTON - President Bush is not giving up on his call to overhaul the tax code for those who buy health insurance. The president focused his attention again on the topic after a recent government report projected that health care spending would double by the year 2016. Analysts say current tax policy is contributing to the increase in spending through incentives that favor more comprehensive and expensive health benefits. The president has proposed treating health insurance contributions as income, which would cause workers' taxable wages to shoot up dramatically. But the president then calls for a standard tax deduction for those who buy health insurance Â $15,000 for family coverage and $7,500 for individual coverage. So, the key to getting a tax cut will be to keep the cost of the policy below the size of the new deduction. The prospect of a tax cut would serve as a huge incentive for people to spend less on health insurance. Democratic leaders were quick to criticize the plan. But more recently, a group of 10 senators Â five Republicans and five Democrats Â wrote the president and told him they agreed that current tax rules for health insurance disproportionately favor the rich while promoting inefficiency. And http://www.democrati...ddress=389x280401 Bush tauts same wine --different label: "Affordable Choices" The president said he also wants to support governors who come up with innovative ways to help their citizens get insurance coverage. Under his proposal, states that put in place a basic health plan for all of their citizens would get access to what he calls "affordable choice grants." The grant money would come from programs that now reimburse providers when they care for the indigent. "By taking existing federal funds and turning them into Affordable Choices grants, we will give America's governors more money and more flexibility, so they can help provide private health insurance for those who need it most," Bush said. So the plan, as I understand it, was to eliminate an existing un-capped tax benefit and replace it with a capped one, thereby encouraging people to buy less-expensive coverage. With no mechanism that I can see to regulate what must be covered, that (in practice) means encouraging people to buy less coverage. Is that about the size of it? -- Drew
Post #382,360 by CRConrad 10/18/13 5:16:10 PM Reply	Darn, you put a question mark at the end of that! All it takes is a loud "Yess, dammit!" from the BOx, and after that he'll think he can claim to have "answered" your misgivings in the sense of having proved his point of view. Or something; that's how his reasoning seems to go. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #382,400 by boxley 10/19/13 6:58:58 PM 10/19/13 7:02:29 PM Reply	from your quote Under his proposal, states that put in place a basic health plan for all of their citizens would get access to what he calls "affordable choice grants." universal basic health for all would include prior conditions and come closer to universal health care that what we have now. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep Edited by boxley Oct. 19, 2013, 07:02:29 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #382,402 by drook 10/19/13 7:13:49 PM Reply	So it would have been up to the states And we see how well that's working. Thanks for confirming there was no plan with a reasonable expectation of leading to better coverage. -- Drew
Post #382,425 by boxley 10/20/13 6:46:39 PM Reply	So it would have been up to the states So is the well poobah'ed expansion of medicare that others so loudly trumpet as a gleaming bastion of Obama's healthcare plan. No different which is why many states turned it down because they could see the money supply dropping off in the future. Exactly the same plan but a democrat put it on the table so the democrats voted for it this time. Could have had the same thing under shrub, the usual first we are for it, then we are against it that ALL sides play in DC As far as leaving it up to the states, tell me how many Health Insurance companies operate outside of state lines and are federal? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #382,426 by drook 10/20/13 6:48:28 PM Reply	What happens when the states decline? What happened under Bush's plan? -- Drew
Post #382,428 by boxley 10/20/13 6:50:34 PM Reply	Same as happened under Obama's plan, the same thing Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #382,431 by Another Scott 10/20/13 8:32:38 PM Reply	You're taking the feel-good words at face value. http://money.cnn.com...posal_effect/#not Who might not be affected much if at all by the deduction? Many low-income and uninsured people. According to Treasury Department and White House estimates, the proposal would reduce the number of uninsured by 3 million to 5 million people. That number is low relative to the total number of uninsured (over 46 million) for two reasons primarily: - 43 percent of the uninsured have no income tax liability, according to Kaiser Family Foundation. But they would still get a payroll tax credit on the wages they earn if they buy health insurance. - Many uninsured still won't be able to afford coverage even with the new deduction. (More than 50 percent of the uninsured are in the 15 percent tax bracket or less). Others won't want to part with the cost of insurance premiums up front, even though they'll get it back on their tax return. To provide more of the uninsured with coverage, President Bush is also proposing the Affordable Choices Initiative. Although details are still sketchy, the program would offer funding to states that reform their insurance market so as to provide affordable basic coverage for all. The federal funds would be redirected from other programs to help states subsidize coverage for low-income people. So, no new money for more-universal coverage. Unsurprisingly, the program would have done almost nothing to expand coverage. The part of the program that was fleshed out won't help 43% of those without insurance. The part that would supposedly help those who don't earn enough for the tax break to help is left as a magic asterisk. Some TBD "funding for our program with the nice name" to the states is exactly the same as expanded Medicaid eligibility. Yeah, it was just as good as Obamacare. To think we could have had that years ago!!111 <sigh> Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!