Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 113

Thread: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

  1. #71
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Yeah, that doesn't tell me you read it. It tells me you cut and pasted from one of those chain emails or websites.
    ...of which I debunked the first 20 or so based on what I HAVE read of the HCR bill myself.

  2. #72
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    See Talloulou's post above. How many people can afford an extra 500 $ a month? Not many in my area.
    and yet that's the "solution" proposed by waxman/rangel

    folks gotta buy the stuff THEMSELVES

    and if they can prove they got a CLUNKER of an income (LOL!), they MIGHT qualify for a pittance of assistance from uncle sam

    but you better fill out the paper work perfect, cuz word is ms nance is playing hardball with it

    she's only kicked back 2% of the clunker cash she's promised, for example

    families without insurance, under waxman/rangel, are still in the main ON THEIR OWN

    the bill MANDATES those uninsured PURCHASE coverage

    exactly as driving is handled in CA

    and if you're caught driving, err, breathing without insurance you're FINED as a criminal

    The Associated Press: A look at health care plans in Congress

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    You've stated this before, but you've also pointed out that this is BC/BS policy, not necessarily the law in itself. Quote me the piece of federal legistlation that specifies a timeline bywhich people w/pre-existing medical conditions can get quality health care either through their employer or on their own and I'll agree with you that it can be done under the law. Until then, this is merely the policy of one health insurer (and a rather generous provision I might add).
    Yes, and unless he is self employed this is probably the contract for his particular group employer and may not carry over to every person who has BC/BS. Generally large employers can work out better contracts for their people.

  4. #74
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    You've stated this before, but you've also pointed out that this is BC/BS policy, not necessarily the law in itself. Quote me the piece of federal legistlation that specifies a timeline bywhich people w/pre-existing medical conditions can get quality health care either through their employer or on their own and I'll agree with you that it can be done under the law. Until then, this is merely the policy of one health insurer (and a rather generous provision I might add).
    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou
    I think you're wrong. There is no law protecting folks in all cases. For example with my mother's plan and job if her work switches insurance plans my stepfather's coverage is switched over to the new plan with a short waiting period for his pre-existing condition.

    However if she switches jobs and becomes a brand new subscriber to a brand new insurance plan my stepfather may be entirely excluded for coverage all together.

    Do you honestly believe many folks are just raising a ruckus over the whole pre-existing condition fiasco without reason?
    Two for the price of one. Like I said, I had my own business for many years and became intimately familiar with insurance laws and practices. My sister has been a benefits manager at several major corporations for many years.

    It's not just BCBS. Do you think they would have this policy if they didn't have to??

    The length of time coverage can be denied for a preexisting condition under HIPAA is limited to no longer than 12 months (18 months if you are a late enrollee). This time can be reduced or eliminated if you were covered by previous health insurance (which qualifies under HIPAA as creditable coverage) and if there was not a break in coverage between the plans of 63 days or more.
    The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) has very specific requirements that health insurance companies and companies must follow.

    talloulou, your stepfather can have uninterrupted coverage as long as your mother has continuous coverage for 63 days.... no questions asked.

    I believe folks are raising a ruckus because they are uninformed. Asking your agent questions and doing a little research does wonders. This law has been in effect since 1996.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  5. #75
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Your health insurance isn't "tied" to your employer. I've had more than one job where I refused their coverage and bought my own. I've currently carried my own for years now.
    However, your experience is by far the exception rather than the rule. For a great many reasons, but most of all because of the tax treatment of health insurance, the vast majority of people with health insurance have health insurance through their employer.

    There is no inherent economic rationale for this, it merely is how the system is today.

    However--and I am surprised folks on the liberal side of things have not picked up on this--there is a fundamental iniquity in the taxation of health insurance. Health insurance costs paid by the employer are a tax deductible expense. Health insurance costs paid by employees are tax exempt to the extent they are a part of such a plan. Health insurance of self-employed individuals are exempt. Health insurance costs paid by individuals not self employed not tied to an available employer plan are not tax exempt.

    Tax Topics - Topic 502 Medical and Dental Expenses
    If you are self–employed and have a net profit for the year, or if you are a partner in a partnership or a shareholder in an S corporation, you may be able to deduct, as an adjustment to income, 100% of the amount you pay for medical insurance for yourself and your spouse and dependents. You can include the remaining premiums with your other medical expenses as an itemized deduction. You cannot take the special 100% deduction for any month in which you are eligible to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by your employer or your spouse's employer.
    Thus a person pays a tax penalty for choosing not to sign on to the employer-subsidized plan.

    Why should health insurance be tax deductible to employers but not tax deductible to employees? Why should workers be penalized in this fashion?

    If ever there was a case where a tax benefit should be removed from companies and applied to individuals, it is the tax deductability of health insurance. If employer-subsidized health insurance were stripped of its advantageous tax treatment, and if individually-purchased health insurance received that treatment, the resulting shift in the insurance marketplace would be away from employer-subsidized insurance to individually-purchased insurance. Individuals would be the direct--and sole--customers of insurance companies, which greatly increases their marketing power to demand various things within insurance products. Further reform insurance markets to make it more attractive to new insurance providers to increase the range of choice among insurance companies, and insurance companies will, for the sake of pursuing customers, work out the best economics of risks associated with pre-existing conditions, et cetera.

    This would be a real, substantive reform, that would greatly restructure and revamp health insurance markets in this country, to the benefit of individuals. More importantly, it is a small reform, one that does not require 1,000 pages of legislation to bring into being. If the majority party had proposed this reform in July, it would be law by now. The only real group that would likely oppose it would be insurance companies, and even their opposition would be minimal--their marketing efforts would shift, their pricing structures would have to evolve, but there would still be a viable--indeed, an expanded--insurance market place. Hospitals, drug companies, and doctors have little stake in the matter--the continuation of insurance means they still get paid no matter what.

    So why is the majority party not talking about this? Why are they passing on an easy health care reform victory?

  6. #76
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:52 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,597

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    However, your experience is by far the exception rather than the rule. For a great many reasons, but most of all because of the tax treatment of health insurance, the vast majority of people with health insurance have health insurance through their employer.
    I certainly accept that they do; I don't accept the idea that it's your only option.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    Having health insurance tied to your employer is one issue. No decent options for small businesses with few employees is another issue. Having insurance companies drop folks from the plan as soon as they become chronically ill is another issue. Pre-exsting conditions is another issue.

    There's a whole host of things that the free market simply isn't fixing and insurance companies are making oodles of money off this riot.
    There is no free-market in the health insurance industry; consumers aren't even allowed to purchase health insurance provided in other states.

  8. #78
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Celticlord,

    I find for perhaps the 2nd time something we both agree upon.

    Good point. It would make sense to simply remove the tax burden from the consumer, but I doubt it would win support because big businesses don't want to lose this exclusive tax deduction. It would be one less tax write-off big corperations couldn't use.

    But here I agree with you 100%. Removing the tax deduction would open the marketplace not only regionally but nationally.

    Here's another proposal to health care reform I think you'd agree with. Eliminating Medicare and expanding Medicaid.

    The central issue with health care reform as it attempts to cover the uninsured (or under-insured) is opposition to government-run health care. Well, since Medicare is eating away at the budget and most of the health care reform initiatives would place more people on Medicaid anyway, why not simply expand Medicaid to include four levels of coverage:

    Basic - limited to new borns and people up to 21 years of age.

    Prime - limited to people age 21-45.

    Premium - limited to people age 45-62.

    Plus - exclusive to those individuals age 62 and older.

    The HCR bill already has a stipulation in it whereby the states could form their own Health Insurance Exchange as long as it mirrors the public option exchange. In doing so, the HCR bill requires of states to provide matching funds to cover the cost of health insurance within their state. Since Medicaid already has this same requirement, why not simply expand it, continue with the establishment of the Health Choices Exchange Trust Fund as called for under the HCR bill only rename it to fit Medicaid and then provide additional funds to the states to incorperate the new admittees? This would make far more sense to me than trying to lump the public option with private health insurance reform.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 08-18-09 at 06:28 PM.

  9. #79
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I certainly accept that they do; I don't accept the idea that it's your only option.
    For most people, the employer subsidized option is cheaper than purchasing on their own.

    The way the economics of health insurance are skewed, it is the most rational option for most people, given the information they have at hand.

  10. #80
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    There is no free-market in the health insurance industry; consumers aren't even allowed to purchase health insurance provided in other states.
    bingo

    this is the first obvious step to real control of skyrocketing costs

    free up consumers to purchase insurance across state lines

    then---tort reform, or its flipside, malpractice control

    of course, these republican resolves are thoroughly irrelevant

    the reds don't register

    the ball is entirely obama's and his party's

    but they're fumbling

    and the gop is in EASY positioning to recover

    starting in richmond and trenton, nov 3, less than 80 days

    thanks, ethereal, good point

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •