News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

President Obama's Healthcare Proposal

Started by Conan71, February 22, 2010, 12:04:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Conan71

Here it is, un-filtered from the White House web site:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

Click on the links on the left side of the page for a brief Q & A on each point

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting

Yahoo's summary of the plan:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100222/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

Gaspar

I must admit I was hoping for something more realistic.  This is what I got out of it.  Let me know if I missed anything.

It doesn't take affect until 2018.

It puts a preemptive tax on "high-cost health plans," AKA all employer provided plans.

A penalty averaging $3,200 per worker per year will be charged to companies with payrolls exceeding $500,000 if they opt not to provide an employer plan insurance to their employees.

Considering that the annual employer provided health plan costs significantly more than $3,200 a year to the employer, this plan will do exactly what it is intended to do, and devastate the health insurance industry by making the penalty more attractive than the expense of insurance.  Additionally many companies are forgiven the first 30 employees not covered and the penalty amount decreases with company scale.  While there is no mention of a single payer system, why would you do this to the industry unless you were planning to usher in a government plan at some point?  This is a transparent Cloward/Pivenesque strategy.

Conversely, companies that provide excellent health benefits (my company spends about $6,000 a year per employee) will be rewarded with some form of tax benefit not fully outlined; however each plan will be taxed as a premium plan.  This is the really fuzzy part of the proposal.  There is discussion of incentive, but no real concrete mention of what the incentive would amount too.  There is however a very clear outline of additional fees on equipment and non-generic medication.  So, it takes money out of one of your pockets and puts it in the other. Really?

There's also no real understanding of how the plan would help the bankrupt medicare/medicaide system.  The added regulation on the system to decrease fraud will require the construction of a behemoth new bureaucracy.  Of course there is no mention of where the additional billions of dollars will come from. The existing bureaucracy is tit$ up, so now we're gonna build a bigger one?  That's a flat tire.

At the end there is some sketchy mention of a $67 billion assessment on the insurance industry over 10 years, and because the educated among us know that businesses don't pay taxes, that means higher insurance fees on top of penalties.  There is also $20 billion on equipment over 10 years resulting in higher procedure and hospital costs top of penalties.  The fees will take affect in 2014 so we will see the increases in medical costs across the board 4 years before we see any of the proposed decline in quality, increased employer costs, and the death of innovation. 

The plan also proposes to hike fees and eliminate formulary support for brand name pharmaceuticals.  Also is a "pay-for-delay" tax in the plan that would encourage drug manufacturers to turn over their intellectual property and abandon patents to lower quality generic drug producers.  This would basically end the pharmaceutical company profits, and end private medical research by removing any incentive for innovation.
 
I'm sorry I took the time to read this.  By 2018 it will be bankrupt under its own weight. Somehow I had this small hope that he had received the message. 

Since his inauguration I have consistently referred to President Obama by his title.  I have never called him by any other name and always shown respect to the office, even though I disagree with almost everything he has attempted.  I am having a moment of weakness and am tempted to change that policy.  President Obama has again refused to lead. 

When attacked by a mob of clowns, always go for the juggler.

Conan71

I think I've finally gotten the picture that President Obama intends for healthcare reform to define his legacy. I'm a slow learner, but so is he.  It's a wobbly legacy at best.  The timing is interesting as most provisions kick in two years after he leaves office assuming a successful run at a 2nd term in 2016.  Just enough time for a collapse to be someone else's fault.  Let's a assume a Republican were to win in '16 and soften up some areas of the original plan, blame would go squarely on their shoulders when the fecal matter hits the bladed oscillating device.

Far as I know, the Pharma and Insurance industries employ millions of Americans in good-paying jobs.  Start hitting them hard and the government will manage to permanently shitcan a bunch more jobs that can be moved overseas or just flat evaporate by being obsoleted by legislation.

Also, I'm amazed at the taxes which really aren't taxes in this proposal.  ::)

I intend to read further through this when I get the time.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

Gaspar

Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2010, 02:19:36 PM

I intend to read further through this when I get the time.

You'll never get that time back.  :P

Pelosi and Reid are avoiding any comment or camera. 
I think they're embarrassed too, but for different reasons.

When attacked by a mob of clowns, always go for the juggler.

Gaspar

"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Monday that it cannot score President Barack Obama's health reform proposal because it lacks enough detail. "

Really?
When attacked by a mob of clowns, always go for the juggler.

we vs us

Wow, this is the discussion you want me to jump into?  I've either got a Cloward/Pivenesque/w-t-f-are-you-TALKING-about strategy staring me in the face or an Obama that's so evil he's going to purposefully eff up the country, but only in time for a possible Republican presidency.  

I mean, seriously, can we lighten up on the hysteria, please?  

My reax: I'm relieved he's finally putting out his plan but it's very very late in the game.  He's also walking the thin line that we all knew he had to walk:  between trying to be (or at least look) bipartisan and keeping his base happy.  You'll notice that there's still very little to keep the lefty dems happy, and quite a lot to offer the Republicans.  Not that it will matter in the slightest, but there you go.  He modeled it on the Senate bill, which was by far the more cautious of the two bills, so this isn't gonna get very high marks for audaciousness.  

Re: deficit reduction:  while the CBO hasn't scored this -- and the Republicans will seize on that as a reason to knock it down before it gets out of the gate -- the Senate bill (if I'm not mistaken) was projected to reduce the deficit in about the same amount that Obama is claiming.  And if he's based his plan on the Senate bill, then there's a good chance the deficit reduction will be similar, too.  By all means we should hear what the CBO says, but it's not out of line to give the pres the benefit of the doubt.  

Re:  politics and optics:  In my opinion, the politics on this have changed since the summer and fall, and it's going to be very interesting how it plays out.  I think there's been an imperceptible shift in momentum away from the GOP and towards the prez, and I think it's coming because for whatever reason the GOP obstructionism is starting to be seen for what it is, rather than as a simple principled stand.  Will it stop 2010 from being a Dem bloodbath?  No, probably not.  But it does allow just enough room for Obama to make the GOP start owning their opposition more effectively.  

That's going to be what the "healthcare summit" on Thursday is all about, and the GOP leadership rather stupidly let themselves be goaded into attending.  Unless something goes awry, Obama's going to pummel them pretty effectively with this new plan . . . especially because he's taken great pains to lay out how he's compromised with the Republicans.  

re:  Dems.  A lot of dems -- and not all super liberals -- feel like they've been sold out by Obama.  The lack of a public option is a proxy for all the great things we thought he would do and hasn't, and all the fights that we perceive he's walked away from .  That's one of the reasons it's taken on such a major importance on the left.  There's also still some strong abortion language to contend with, and that's a problem for almost all dems.  I'm hopeful that enough time has passed -- and enough tea party rage has subsided or compromised itself -- that the bill is passable in something very near to its current form.  It ain't perfect but it's a damn sight better than nothing, and it has the added bonus of keeping Obama alive to fight another day, rather than going down to Davey Jones' locker with this tied around his ankle.

Conan71

Why are we looking for or expecting audacity in legislation, what's wrong with sensibility?  Do you really think President Obama sold out the Dems or is it quite possible that he knew he was over-promising on healthcare in the first place and just said a bunch of crap to get elected?  That does happen especially when the most prestigious job in the world is up for grabs.  Roughly $60mm of his campaign contributions in '08 came from "finance, insurance, real estate" and "health".  They weren't giving to the Obama Campaign out of the goodness of their heart, he owes some favors.  What's interesting is it's almost a dead heat in donations from the same industries to the Democrat Party and Republican Party, given each party's census in Congress.  Do you think anyone is really moved to make a substantive change in health care in DC or is this all window dressing to keep the troops at home happy and keep them in a job?

So by waiting until now to roll this out, was he trying to delegate effectively, or did he simply have no real ideas to start with so they cobbled together a package at the White House after finally seeing something in print.  One problem I have with CBO estimates is that they are only as good as Congress' commitment to keep their own special unrelated interests out of a bill.  There is absolutely no reason a health care reform bill needs to be 2000 pages in length if they are truly interested in transparency.  It's things like that which make me give HC reform the hairy eyeball.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

Gaspar

From a business owner. . . 

"Based on this plan it would be more difficult to hire lower level workers, young people, and older workers who qualify for subsidies. We would simply eliminate receptionists and lower level staff."
When attacked by a mob of clowns, always go for the juggler.

we vs us

Quote from: Gaspar on February 23, 2010, 11:49:49 AM
From a business owner. . . 

"Based on this plan it would be more difficult to hire lower level workers, young people, and older workers who qualify for subsidies. We would simply eliminate receptionists and lower level staff."


Perhaps that's one of the reasons the plan doesn't kick in till 2018.  Give the market plenty of time to stabilize.

And Conan, in general I'm a glass half-full kinda guy, and really just incapable of the level of cynicism you're suggesting.  I couldn't stay in this country if I thought that all the people who represent me or my ideas were 100% co-opted by their corporate donors, or were operating completely on a machiavellian basis. 

Luckily, Obama's ideas and message have been relatively consistent, even if his tactics have changed and he's been willing to make compromises.  That tells me there's a core of honesty there.  And he's really going back into the breach with HCR right now, and if he was anywhere near as cynical as you suggest he'd've just let it slide by now. 

Conan71

Quote from: we vs us on February 23, 2010, 01:30:21 PM
Perhaps that's one of the reasons the plan doesn't kick in till 2018.  Give the market plenty of time to stabilize.

And Conan, in general I'm a glass half-full kinda guy, and really just incapable of the level of cynicism you're suggesting.  I couldn't stay in this country if I thought that all the people who represent me or my ideas were 100% co-opted by their corporate donors, or were operating completely on a machiavellian basis. 

Luckily, Obama's ideas and message have been relatively consistent, even if his tactics have changed and he's been willing to make compromises.  That tells me there's a core of honesty there.  And he's really going back into the breach with HCR right now, and if he was anywhere near as cynical as you suggest he'd've just let it slide by now. 


I'm a glass-half full person as well, but I know what corruption, influence-peddling, and toxic government waste looks like. 

He can't afford to let it slide since it was a major campaign message he ran on.  Granted, he's not cut an run as quick as the Clintons did from Hillarycare but I think he figures he needs to at least make the appearance of still trying.  Would you agree this is an example of where he's shown lack of leadership at least to this point? 
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

we vs us

I would say this was lack of leadership, yes.  But I think he made a pretty big mistake in execution and is finally attempting to correct it.   

I also think that he was letting Congress lead the way as part of a concerted strategy, not negligence or inexperience.  Looking at how the Clintons got nailed by doing it the other way around, I can't blame him.  On the other hand, his situation -- and the tenor and ability of Congress -- is very different from the Clinton era.  Also, he was slow to recognize the damage being done by the Tea Party and by the GOP. 

The guy's only been in office a year, he's facing unprecedented external challenges (2 wars, worst recession in a generation, etc) as well as a co-equal branch of government that's completely shut down at this point.  (interesting stat:  the House has passed 290 bills that the Senate is sitting on because of the GOP filibuster)..  His environment has definitely played a role in how successful he's been. 

nathanm

Quote from: we vs us on February 23, 2010, 03:51:11 PM
as well as a co-equal branch of government that's completely shut down at this point.  (interesting stat:  the House has passed 290 bills that the Senate is sitting on because of the GOP filibuster)..  His environment has definitely played a role in how successful he's been. 
And just to head off the "but they had a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate" canard from the right: Joe Lieberman was one of those votes. Joementum Lieberman can hardly be considered a reliable vote for the Dems.
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln

guido911

Quote from: nathanm on February 23, 2010, 07:37:05 PM
And just to head off the "but they had a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate" canard from the right: Joe Lieberman was one of those votes. Joementum Lieberman can hardly be considered a reliable vote for the Dems.

A "canard"? Lieberman was the DEM VP nominee in 2000. The dems had 58 senators and two independents that caucus with the dems, but it was the repubs that held up everything. To me, that's the canard if not flat out, over-the-top excuse making. 

WEVSUS: First, how much longer are you and those like you going to continue talking about how tough it was in this country when Bam became president? If he didn't have the stones to handle tough times, which he undoubtedly knew about before he was elected, then why did he take the job? I would hate to see this guy leading this country if another 9/11 type attack happened. I think we would find him balled up in a corner crying and trying to find a way to blame Bush.
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.

nathanm

Quote from: guido911 on February 23, 2010, 07:54:53 PM
A "canard"? Lieberman was the DEM VP nominee in 2000. The dems had 58 senators and two independents that caucus with the dems, but it was the repubs that held up everything. To me, that's the canard if not flat out, over-the-top excuse making.  
Yes, it's a canard. Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats only because he gets chairmanships out of the deal. He is not at all a reliable vote for the Democrats, so relying on him to break a filibuster is like relying on Bill Clinton to keep his wang in his pants. It might happen out of pure coincidence, but you shouldn't expect it.

Edited to add: Lieberman as VP choice in 2000 is a great example of Democrats pandering to the right, whose votes they will never get anyway.
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln

Conan71

Quote from: nathanm on February 23, 2010, 08:00:07 PM
Yes, it's a canard. Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats only because he gets chairmanships out of the deal. He is not at all a reliable vote for the Democrats, so relying on him to break a filibuster is like relying on Bill Clinton to keep his wang in his pants. It might happen out of pure coincidence, but you shouldn't expect it.

Edited to add: Lieberman as VP choice in 2000 is a great example of Democrats pandering to the right, whose votes they will never get anyway.

Really? Everyone forget Sen. Olympia Snowe already or the fact that Sens. Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu had to be greased big time to go along with the Dems?  Others toed the party line a lot easier but I'm sure with great trepidation.

The joke on us is Democrats are blaming the Republicans for their massive legislative failures when they've got their best majority plus a D President for the first time in, what four decades?
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan