If the Republicans on the Supreme Court somehow get the individual mandate declared unconstitutional, who says the Republicans in Congress don’t have an alternative plan? The banks can even create a derivatives market for organs!
UPDATE: The Judge’s ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional is fatally flawed (even according to conservatives).
Abortion Bush Campaign Finance Cheney Climate Clinton Congress Conservatives Corporations Corruption Deficits Democrats Drugs Economy Education Election Elections Energy Environment Fox News Gays Guns Health Immigration Lies McCain Media Middle East Obama Palin Protests Racism Religion Republicans Romney Spying Supreme Court Taxes Tea Party Terrorism Terrorists Torture Trump Unemployment War
16 Comments
Has anybody else heard any rumors about a possible Soylent Corporation start up?? If so, let me know. I want to get in on the ground floor and invest heavily in their businesses!!
Let the unregulated, free market roll….
Thats a bit extreme. Are we fear mongering again?
Regarding fear mongering
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/03/arizona-budget-cuts-boot-patients-from-transplant-list/
I Got it Jonah, it is tragic and an excellent point. The new HCR puts alot of burden on the states to pick up the slack without any additional funding mechanisms. In the current economy, and very much so in states like AZ who’ve been hit hard in the recession there will be more of this. States will have to choose between cutting education, essential service like police and fire, or medical assistance.
Meanwhile in congress with some upset that that tax cuts to the wealthy will add to the deficit they are simultaneously stuffing the omnibus spending bill with billions for over 6000 earmarks that could instead go to states. Important earmarks for sure, like 300k (could have paid for the transplant you cited) for the polonesian travelers society in HI. Now that shows a true focus for priorities from our legislators.
Maybe you could take out a mortgage on your organs. When you die, the bank gets them.
pgt, i’m not sure how this is related to HCR. Are you saying without hcr these medicaid patients would have found a way to pay for the treatments?
Jonah –
States are going broke, they cannot afford HCR as written.
With HCR as is, people who can’t afford ins will get it through a mix of medicaid from states and the fed through premium rebates as I understand it. States will be mandated by federal law to supply the additional coverage, without getting revenue from the fed. It will put already stressed states in a worse position. Likely the fed will have to bail them out or states will have to drastically reduce their essential services. Part of the funding mechanism as I understand it for HCR, is passing off costs to states, and also taking 1/2 trillion from medicare. Those folks would then fall back on medicaid which again puts more burden on states. The other fed costs are the rebates or tax credits they’ll give to maybe 10-20 million people without ins to go buy it on the market. The other 10 mill will just have to buy it.
What the fed needed to do was create another payroll tax “health care” and figure out what rate they’d need to charge, say 3-4%. Instead they are taking away from medicare and other programs (education, food & housing for poor and making states pay. I don’t see how it’s sustainable as it stands now.
Let me know if my thinking is way off base.
PatriotSgt, it would help your arguments if you would cite references (links) to the appropriate data. Not just to articles that make the same points, but to hard data. Thanks.
For example, yes, cost of health care is stressing state budgets, but that was happening before HCR. The cost of health care increased a stunning amount — more than eight times — from 1980 to 2008. So you can’t blame that on HCR.
Here in MA the cost of health provided to public employees is what is killing the state. The Boston Foundation just released a report that found that all of the additional moneys that were put into public education over the past decade went entirely to increases in health care insurance. Part of it has to do with incredibly generous health care benefits negotiated by the unions and a state law that prohibits cities/towns from changing health benefits without approval from the union. But another big part of it simply the cost of health care insurance has risen dramatically over the same period.
Getting rid of public employees will not help matters either. At least here in MA, companies that do the work that was formerly done by a government agency (trash pick up, for example) have to provide health insurance and pay prevailing wages. Since smaller businesses actually spend more on their health care insurance benefits than the government does, and because those costs are built into the contracts, no one is saving any money.
Wow! Grammar errors galore there. Sorry about that. Need more coffee.
OK IK – here is a slightly enhanced version of post 7.
States are going broke; they cannot afford HCR as written and by 2030 Medicaid costs to states my reach as high as 35- 40% of the States budgets.
With HCR as is, people who can’t afford insurance will get it through a mix of Medicaid from states and the fed through premium rebates as I understand it. States will be mandated by federal law to supply the additional coverage and absorb the increased enrollment, and will be reimbursed for the first several years before reductions begin in 2017 at 5% and increase over the following 5 years to 10% (see section 1201). It will put already stressed states in a worse position. Likely the fed will have to bail them out or states will have to drastically reduce their essential services. Part of the funding mechanism as I understand it for HCR, is that states will have to pay the admin costs, and also taking almost 1/2 trillion from Medicare. Those folks would then fall back on Medicaid which again puts increase the burden on states. The other fed costs are the rebates or tax credits they’ll give to maybe 10-20 million people without insurance to go buy it on the market. The other 10 mill will just have to buy it.
What the fed needed to do was create another payroll tax “health care” and figure out what rate they’d need to charge, say 3-4%. Instead they are taking away from Medicare and other programs (education, community assistance for poor) while hoping the collect 69 bill in “penalties” from people and companies that don’t get insurance.. I don’t see how it’s sustainable as it stands now. Lets fund it correctly and not use so many wishful thinking scenarios that probably won’t come true.
Starluna – I agree with you concering health care cost for state employees. I’d add that pension funding is also a major concern for many of the cadillac pensions given away in many areas.
OK IK -why didn’t any of my hyperlinks show? I copied from MS Word directly into the comment box. Anyway here they are in order of appearance to my post #11
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/US_CHS_2010LTCinMedicaid_062910.pdf
http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_amndsub.pdf
http://www.ffis.org/sites/ffis.org/files/ff/healthcare_reform_expected_to_create_longerterm_finan_pressure_for_states.pdf
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/26066.html
*hands Starluna coffee*
Hey, at least you’re not a former English Prof littering the comments page with grammar mistakes… unlike me. 😉
HCR is not the cause of the cost escalation you fear, Sarge, it is an attempt to control them and improve quality of care at the same time.
Meatsuit – I am for HCR, but what I don’t like is in their plan they pulled money from many other programs including other HC programs like Medicare. Thats not the way to fund this thing and it will baloon the deficit (if that can be done) because they’ll go back and refund the programs they took from thus increasing our debt. Both houses of congress are good at spending, neither is good at saving. They want to increase revenue to pay for new spending. If we just do a payroll tax like SS and Medicare to pay for HCR then everyone pitches in and there will be no increase to debt. Thats all I’m saying. I think we needed HCR and improved quality and better prevention, but we just need to responsibly pay for it.
PatriotSgt, unfortunately it is all too easy to point out that we should control the deficit, but do you really think that the Republicans would not filibuster any measure to raise taxes (even payroll taxes)? Are you saying that because we aren’t paying for HCR the way you would like, we should not have any health care reform at all? I hope not.