Saturday, March 27, 2010

plus 1 more “Obama’s health insurance rule — it was a GOP idea - Joplin Globe”

plus 1 more “Obama’s health insurance rule — it was a GOP idea - Joplin Globe”


Obama’s health insurance rule — it was a GOP idea - Joplin Globe

Posted: 27 Mar 2010 05:35 AM PDT

Published March 27, 2010 08:41 am - Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

Obama's health insurance rule — it was a GOP idea

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen GOP attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional.

Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.

Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans — the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits — two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received — by the George H.W. Bush administration.

"It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn't," said Pauly. "Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it."

Obama rejected a key part of Pauly's proposal: doing away with the tax-free status of employer-sponsored health care and replacing it with a standard tax credit for all Americans. Labor strongly opposes that approach because union members usually have better-than-average coverage and suddenly would have to pay taxes on it. But many economists believe it's a rational solution to America's health care dilemma since it would raise enough money to cover the uninsured and nudge people with coverage into cost-conscious plans.

Romney's success in Massachusetts with a bipartisan health plan that featured a mandate put the idea on the table for the 2008 presidential candidates.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who failed in the 1990s to require employers to offer coverage, embraced the individual requirement, an idea advocated by her Republican opponents in the earlier health care debate.

"Hillary Clinton believed strongly in universal coverage," said Neera Tanden, her top health care adviser in the 2008 Democratic campaign. "I said to her, 'You are not going to be able to say it's universal coverage unless you have a mandate.' She said, 'I don't want to run unless it's universal coverage."'

Obama was not prepared to go that far. His health care proposal in the campaign required coverage for children, not adults. Clinton hammered him because his plan didn't guarantee coverage for all. He shot back that health insurance is too expensive to force people to buy it.

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.



image

An Alternative to the Health Care Bill - Victoria Advocate

Posted: 27 Mar 2010 01:10 AM PDT

As a Democrat, I wrote a blog last summer about my ideas for the Heath Care Bill. I expressed that the bill, now law, is not the best way to go. On that blog, I expressed on what should be in the bill.

1) No mandates/ No mandatory insurance.

2) Expand Medicare to those of 45 and over.

3) Expand S-chip to every child or Destroy S-chip and create a baby bond saving account of $ 1,000 for each baby born. The child, when adult at 18 (or 23 if in college), would get the money.

4) Ban Pre-existing conditions and caps on insurance.

5) Cut 15-20% out of every governmental budget and use that money as a cushion for those between 18 and 45. Perhaps, create a mini-health care system for those in that age range.

6) No coverage on abortions with exceptions of rape or incest.

7) No coverage on cosmetic surgery, but coverage on

I am a big supporter of the President, but I am against this law. The Law has a mandates and the spending of it is too quick and fast. It doesn't benefit the economy right now. Second, I detest the back room deals to get it passed.



  • "I actually understand how the the free market works." Really? I guess that is why you like socialized medicine so much, LOL. What other business would stand for this intrusion by the government - I feel sorry for doctors and hospitals. They are in for a hell of a time. But then someone who understands how markets work as well as you do I'm sure couldn't care less about such trivial matters.

    Next in line for "treatment" is Wall Street, but not Fannie and Freddie, because they are still required to make bad loans - I know how well you understand this. However the rest of us are just a little too stupid to comprehend anything like this.

    Yeah Mike, I guess you're right unfettered government is a good thing, just ask Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin....oh that's right they're dead - what a shame.

    March 27, 2010 at 1:40 p.m.

  • You didn't get that chuckle from me;I didn't say unfettered free market. I actually understand how the the free market works...As long as we have the Fed we will never have an unfettered free market.we have the FDA,EPA,FDIC, and other agencies assured us that we will not go to corporatism,Platonism or back to the Glenn Beck gold standard. on a

    I used unfettered (in previous posts) To mean that we can not let the market run amok...Alan Greenspan just made a statement last week re-emphasizing that. You live in a "either or" world so I know I never will penetrate your free-market fundamentalist mind but I'm pretty sure Americans want some financial reforms, so we don't have to go through what we did from 2005- 2007....I actually put my money where my free-market capitalist mouth is... I just don't have a disdain for government but I don't expect you to make any sense of that.

    March 27, 2010 at 1:05 p.m.

  • So am I. You know Mike, I get a chuckle everytime you mention unfettered free markets, you know why? Because now we have completely unfettered government - it's a hell only someone like you could enjoy.

    March 27, 2010 at 12:46 p.m.

  • Touche,glad not to be one of your loyal followers.

    March 27, 2010 at 12:31 p.m.

  • No, it doesn't include name callers otherwise you would have been included.

    March 27, 2010 at 12:22 p.m.

  • Please code, I can hardly keep the vomit in my mouth. Move to Cuba, GD it.

    March 27, 2010 at noon

  • How many posters does "we" represent?I think just those that resort to name calling, a daily doom and gloom prognostication,weak attempts at humor,and have a fundamentalist view of the free market/world....Not many.

    IMO

    Mike

    March 27, 2010 at 11:54 a.m.

  • Well you prove my point exactly, of course you can be a greedy fool and toast the excesses of success if you are the lucky few but for the rest of the nation there is a need for regulation in all free market economies.

    The Health Care law is quite simply an effort to bring equilibrium to an unfettered market that has been out of control for decades.

    Time will tell if it is successful but your alternative (which seems to be to let these systems run untouched by Government)can be just as damaging as any blanket smothering by a Government (which I don't believe this law is going to do anyway).

    I'll match your coo coo and raise you a doo doo because that's what you're dropping on the heads of those who will never get a slice of the apple pie in your segregated view of utopia

    March 27, 2010 at 11:43 a.m.

  • Mike "We" was referring to people who hate socialism, I obviously was not including you.

    March 27, 2010 at 11:34 a.m.

  • Code, you would fit in just fine in cuckoo clock land, I mean isn't that where we are headed?

    The rest of our economy by and large is based on free markets. Code, do you own a computer, or are you borrowing your mothers? Please make note, code, of how the price of computers and cell phones have been going down in "real dollars" and the quality and enhancements have been going up.

    If corporate greed did this then let's raise our cups to greed and let loose a lusty cheer - on three OK.

    Healthcare use to be cheap, everyone could afford it, now after the government got involved no one can - is that what you call progress, code? If so, coo coo!

    March 27, 2010 at 11:18 a.m.

  • @rollinstone

    You are forgetting to mention the one, biggest fault with an unfettered system like that - corporate greed. You will never get equality in a system like this and the withouts will remain without.

    It's nice to live in cuckoo cloud land and think you can wind that free market system clock up, let it go and it will tick over just nicely but that's just not reality.

    March 27, 2010 at 10:35 a.m.

  • Writen

    With all due respect this health care bill is law and evidently it passed the only way it could have been passed.

    Again you don't have the basic knowledge of what it took to pass this monstrosity...I don't mean to offend there have been several hundred hours of debate; thousands of ideas; and the final bill with fixes is what it took to pass this legislation.

    1. It had to be feasible for the insurance companies to offer coverage for those 32 million new customers. Taking in those with pre-existing conditions without concessions would not have been possible.
    2. It had to be revenue and deficit neutral.
    3. The Hyde amendment was in from the very start
    4. To expand as chip to every child would put an extra burden on the overburdened states.
    5. Your ideas would have never made it out of committee; much less onto the floor in the Senate for a 60 super majority vote.
    6. I would bet your idea would have not even made it to the Congressional Budget Office for calculation.
    This was never an economic package because it takes several years of improvements to see the final results.

    March 27, 2010 at 10:28 a.m.

  • We?

    March 27, 2010 at 10:07 a.m.

  • We don't hate Obama, we hate socialism, with your permission of course. But whatever? BigJ, if I could make a suggestion. Why not try the free market system and let the law of supply and demand do its job, it is so simple - it does not require thousands of pages of incomprehensible, double talking gibberish.

    Healthcare costs are escalating out of control now because the government is involved with the distribution of healthcare. In markets without this interference, we see prices going down and the quality going up - that should be a clue.

    But sadly, I think we are too far down this socialist path to implement your ideas or mine.

    March 27, 2010 at 8:26 a.m.

  • Where are the Obama haters on this one?

    March 27, 2010 at 3:21 a.m.



Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.



image

0 comments:

Post a Comment