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
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.Originally Posted by talloulou
It's not just BCBS. Do you think they would have this policy if they didn't have to??
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) has very specific requirements that health insurance companies and companies must follow.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.
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.
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
Thus a person pays a tax penalty for choosing not to sign on to the employer-subsidized plan.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.
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?
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
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.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 08-18-09 at 04:28 PM.
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