Health Care Reform Cancel The title field is required!

1. Wahlin Scott B

   
   9/26/2011 10:09 PM

   http://www.govtrack.us/congress/committee.xpd?id=HSIF
   
   I may be missing something, but this appears to be the committee make-up when that bill was considered.

   
   
   
   
2. Peter Bowman

   

   11 posts
   
   9/27/2011 7:09 AM

   wahlins said: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/committee.xpd?id=HSIF
   
   I may be missing something, but this appears to be the committee make-up when that bill was considered.

   
   
   Best I could tell Scott, is that the above committee you referenced is from the current, or 112th, Congress. This committee is controlled by Republicans, 31R to 23D in 2011 -2012.
   
   The bills you linked that never got out of committee http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4038 were in the 111th Congress, controlled by the big D's in 2009-2010.

   
   
   
   
3. Sean Hoolehan

   

   0 posts
   
   9/27/2011 10:09 AM

   There are some excellent reforms in the current Obama-care law. We need to cover more children sooner in their life, pre-existing chronic conditions need to be addressed for all people with the creation of a high risk pool. I believe that children having quality timely health-care early in life will save lots of money later on. Unfortunately there are measures that make no sense from a health care sustainability platform. My 2 biggest concerns are cost shifting and the idea that cost of premiums is the definition of "Cadillac".
   
   Obama-care did nothing to address the cost shifting of Medicare rates. Insurance/Private health plans pay more than 2X for the exact same treatment that a Medicare/Medicaid patient pays. The uninsured are not nearly the drain on our system as those insured by Medicare or Medicaid. How do you think the health care industry makes up the difference between what the government pays and what it costs, they increase rates on the privately insured. This is referred to as Cost Shifting. How is adding more people to this government controlled system going to stop this. It's not, and I believe it is intended to bring the private health-care insurance industry down, which include a lot of very well run self-insured plans.
   
   Cadillac plans are addressed as Family premiums over $21,000 and Individual Premiums $8,000 and. The problem I have with this is premiums are a reflection of the health of a plan more than the benefits itself. Consider that Large claims often reflect 1/2 the cost of a plan. In a plan covering 1000 people it is not unusual for 25 of them to represent 1/2 of the claims. The smaller your pool the more volatile the effects of large claims can be. This has nothing to do with benefits. The claims will always reflect the pool. So a pool of highly educated office workers is more likely to be healthy then that of a pool of Union Truck drivers. A pool of workers with a higher % of middle aged people will cost more than a pool of with more young workers. I will use my own employer as a example. We pay $10,668 (employer paid) annually for each full time employee (we have about 1000 employees) and a employees pay $6,216 a year for their family. Years ago my employer decide to partially subsidies the dependent coverage by increasing premiums they pay for employees, but for the last 5 years we have increased premiums equally. So it only make sense that we will discontinue that subsidy and reduce benefits to maintain our premiums under the government mandated Cadillac plan definition. The truth is we have a very unique pool, 40% Native American, we live in a area with one Hospital within 40 miles and no competition to drive down costs, with a resort/casino a lot of our jobs are entry level hospitality work, with employees who are more likely to not afford family coverage even at the present premium.
   
   Health-care reform is still a critical issue. Unfortunately many of the common sense reforms that were included in Obama-care could be tossed out like a "baby in the bath water", and we will be starting at square one all over again. If Obama-care survives in its present form most Americans will find themselves paying more for less benefits, and I believe that was the intention all along.
   
   Sean

   
   
   
   
4. McCallum David K

   
   9/27/2011 2:09 PM

   Poor Timmy used to get hammered for cut and paste and links to a site "we want to know what YOU think, not some cut and paste article"..........I suppose it's like political incorrectness........it is only incorrrect if a Republican or Tea Partier says it..................has their been a sighting?

   
   
   
   
5. Kim Brock

   

   3 posts
   
   9/27/2011 6:09 PM

   Sean,
   Well put. The bill shouldn't be called Health Care Reform, It should be called Health Care INSURANCE Reform.
   I don't believe that Health Care COSTS, which is the main problem is even talked about.
   Kim Brock

   
   
   
   
6. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   9/27/2011 8:09 PM

   Thanks Sean,
   
   I knew from the last health care reform discussions you seemed to have the best handle on it. I know we were all for a reform just because of our family health issues. While we applaud the reform because of what it does for us as a family, it is probably not what's best for all, how can we develop a plan that address those that really could use reform without it costing more for those that might not benefit from it. I hope congress and the president would work on correcting the problems with the plan rather then what I fear republicans want to do is just drop it and start all over, if they even address it. I know addressing this issue is tough right now as well with the jobs and economy issues that are looming, but I do believe this issue plays a part of the big picture of our economy. Just my opinion on it.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
7. McCallum David K

   
   9/29/2011 8:09 AM

   It appears that we will soon have a ruling from the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of forcing every American to have health insurance. Apparently a review will be forthcoming. Depending on the outcome it could have affects on the 2012 elections as well.

   
   
   
   
8. Wahlin Scott B

   
   9/29/2011 10:09 AM

   McCallum said: It appears that we will soon have a ruling from the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of forcing every American to have health insurance. Apparently a review will be forthcoming. Depending on the outcome it could have affects on the 2012 elections as well.

   
   
   Even Jim DeMint wants all Americans to have health insurance and even he is willing to subsidize it with federal funds. The concern as I gather it from Sean's post is whether or not Democrats have set up a plan doomed to fail in order to establish a single payer federally funded and administered health system.

   
   
   
   
9. McCallum David K

   
   9/29/2011 1:09 PM

   Did Jim call and tell you that? I missed that call from him apparently.

   
   
   
   
10. Wahlin Scott B

    
    9/29/2011 2:09 PM

    McCallum said: Did Jim call and tell you that? I missed that call from him apparently.

    
    
    You could have "done a Google" just like I did.
    
    http://demint.senate.gov/public/?p=TheHealthCareFreedomAct

    
    
    
    
11. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    9/29/2011 3:09 PM

    Just quickly looking at the home page Scott posted...I could keep my current employer plan or get vouchers to purchase insurance at $2,000 for individual and $5,000 for family. I have to admit, I don't know the details of the Affordable Health-care Act that the Congress passed and the president signed. I guess I should look it up so I can compare apples to apples, but this plan sounds similar to what was passed except I don't see a mandate, all the other items appear to be in it.
    
    I don't know if I could find insurance that affordable though. My health insurance is paid 100% by my employer, the estimate that benefit at a little over $420 a month if I remember correctly, (that's what they say they pay into the plan, which is self funded) I pay about $417 to add my wife and son on, that is just over $5,000 a year, so I only get a voucher for $5,000 for all of us, (thank goodness I have an employer plan)? I wonder where can I find a insurer that will cover my family for $5,000 a year? What are my deductibles? More importantly what do I pay for prescriptions? How often will my rates get raised? I guess due to health issues, the states are suppose to have pools for families like us? So instead of trusting the federal government I am suppose to trust the state?
    
    I know many questions and no answers, that is why this is a tough issue to handle. Insurance companies trying to make profits for their shareholders and to pay their CEO's millions. People without health problems trying to avoid having to pay so much while not really benefiting from it. Rising cost to pay for new treatments, drugs, facilities (of course did they really need to build a new wing? although it did employ a lot of people in the construction). Rising cost due to poor health choices which is passed on to all, cost to cover those that can not afford to get treated until it's too late requiring a trip to the ER, and to those through no fault of their own except genetics, with diseases that are very expensive to treat. Here we fight over our differences on the issue instead of working for solutions that benefit all of us. I don't have the answer, but thanks for letting me vent.

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
12. Steven Kurta

    

    2 posts
    
    9/30/2011 6:09 PM

    Just don't do it the way Canada does it...because Canada is doing it wrong.
    
    Ask me. I know.

    
    
    
    
13. Thomas Brown

    

    0 posts
    
    10/5/2011 6:10 AM

    I think we all agree the insurance system is broke and needs fixing. While its seems both parties are dragging their feet with no compromising, my club has dropped health care coverage altogether in anticipation of Obamacare going into effect in a couple years anyway. They think the fine they will have to pay is a joke. Meanwhile, my family is looking for a plan that will cover my pre-existing melanoma of two years ago without having to go into a pool of other misfortunates that pay higher premiums for medical problems. My wife and I are both 57 and that doesn't help either.
    
    Tom

    
    
    
    
14. McCallum David K

    
    10/5/2011 6:10 AM

    Tom that definitely sucks. Wish I had a good answer for you but I don't other than "it sucks". Wife had a seizure earlier this year and the ER doctors fee........."his fee only" for about 15 minutes max with her was $1075.00. We have great health care in this country.......just out of control costs.

    
    
    
    
15. Wahlin Scott B

    
    10/5/2011 7:10 AM

    thbrown said: I think we all agree the insurance system is broke and needs fixing. While its seems both parties are dragging their feet with no compromising, my club has dropped health care coverage altogether in anticipation of Obamacare going into effect in a couple years anyway. They think the fine they will have to pay is a joke. Meanwhile, my family is looking for a plan that will cover my pre-existing melanoma of two years ago without having to go into a pool of other misfortunates that pay higher premiums for medical problems. My wife and I are both 57 and that doesn't help either.
    
    Tom

    
    
    That seems like a rugged position for your company to take considering that part of the law does not take effect until 2014. These are very tough times though and a lot of people are having to make difficult decisions. The assessment for being a large company and not offering health insurance is $2000 per employee. This is in addition to the loss of tax breaks for offering affordable health insurance.

    
    
    
    
16. Wahlin Scott B

    
    11/3/2011 5:11 PM

    [img">http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll284/scottcgcs/healthcareidiot.jpg[/img">

    
    
    
    
17. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    11/8/2011 8:11 PM

    In a victory for the Obama administration, the D.C. Court of Appeals has upheld the constitutionality of a key provision of the health care law.
    
    The 2-1 decision is sure to embolden the Obama administration because it was written by Laurence H. Silberman, a Ronald Reagan appointee, who is considered one of the leading conservative jurists on the bench.
    
    At issue before the three-judge panel was the individual mandate, a central provision of the Affordable Care Act, which requires individuals to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.
    
    "The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local – or seemingly passive – their individual origins," Silberman wrote.
    
    He was joined in the decision by Judge Harry T. Edwards, a Carter nominee.
    
    Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who cast the dissenting vote, was appointed by George W. Bush; he said he would have dismissed the case on jurisdictional issues.
    
    Simon Lazarus, of the Public Policy Counsel to the National Senior Citizens Law Center, a supporter of the law, called the decision "the best day for the Affordable Care Act has had in Court so far."
    
    Stephen I. Vladeck, professor of law at American University emphasized the importance of the decision coming from Judge Silberman.
    
    "Judge Silberman has historically been recognized as one of the stronger conservative voices on the federal appellate bench. That even he finds the ACA constitutional—and believes the real issue here is about individual rights, not Congress's power—makes the challengers' odds that much longer with Supreme Court review looming," said Stephen I. Vladeck, professor of law and associate dean for scholarship.
    
    The D.C. Circuit becomes the third court to reject the challenges to the law. Only the 11 th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down the mandate.
    
    The Supreme Court is scheduled to discuss the various challenges to the law behind closed doors on Thursday.
    
    Sorry for the cut and paste but interesting. Maybe everyone will stop fighting the law and work to fix it's problems?
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO