So what do you think will pass in the upcoming Health Care plan?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

pinipig523

I like my job!
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
1,319
Reaction score
29
So what exactly will pass in the upcoming health care plan? I know there's been a few threads about certain parts of this plan but I would like to get a better footing on what will likely be on it and what won't.

From my understanding, the senate plan did not include:
- Public Option
- Medicare expansion to 55yo.
- Importation of drugs

And included:
- Mandatory health insurance for all (except illegals?)
- Pre-existing conditions waived

What about balance billing, reimbursements?

So to really drive this home - the house needs to come up with another bill that they feel would pass in the senate (likely something similar to the senate's bill) and then onto the senate where they nay/yay it?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Everything is in flux, but the most likely bill to pass will be a version of the Senate's, as many moderate Senators will be unwilling to support a public option.

Likely elements to pass:

- Individual mandate (though it doesn't pass Constitutional muster)
- Guaranteed issue
- Tax on Cadillac plans (likely watered down for the unions)
- Other healthcare/income taxes
- Some expansion of Medicare and Medicaid.

Things that are likely DOA:
- Public option
- Abortion funding
- Medicare "doctor fix"
 
Everything is in flux, but the most likely bill to pass will be a version of the Senate's, as many moderate Senators will be unwilling to support a public option.

Likely elements to pass:

- Individual mandate (though it doesn't pass Constitutional muster)
- Guaranteed issue
- Tax on Cadillac plans (likely watered down for the unions)
- Other healthcare/income taxes
- Some expansion of Medicare and Medicaid.

Things that are likely DOA:
- Public option
- Abortion funding
- Medicare "doctor fix"

Thanks, GV.

Can you expound on the elements that will pass? I don't know what Indiv Mandate, tax on cadillac, etc...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thanks, GV.

Can you expound on the elements that will pass? I don't know what Indiv Mandate, tax on cadillac, etc...

Individual mandate - law that states all U.S. adults will be required to get insurance either through their place of work, through Medicare/Medicaid or through the private market. A fine will be applied for those who don't buy their own insurance. The current amount is put at $750, but this may fluctuate. Also not known is is "how much" insurance you will have to buy and exactly what it will have to cover to meet the minimum requirements.

Guaranteed issue - Insurance companies cannot turn you down for pre-existing conditions, age, gender, or any other factors. Some versions of the plan do not allow insurance companies to charge higher rates for people with pre-existing conditions, while some do.

Cadillac tax - Tax on "excessive" health plans, typically employer-provided plans. The tax is up to 40% on plans that have a dollar value of $8500 for an individual or $23,500 for a family. The unions are against this, and it may change, or the caps may be raised.
 
What exactly does the Cadillac tax do? Does this penalize those of us with good health plans?
 
And what about the balance billing issue? Is this going to be banned?
 
I don't understand why I have to pay a penalty for having better health coverage and not sucking the life off of public funds such as medicaid. This is ridiculous.

And does anyone know the status of balance billing?
 
I don't understand why I have to pay a penalty for having better health coverage and not sucking the life off of public funds such as medicaid. This is ridiculous.

And does anyone know the status of balance billing?

Because you work hard and are productive, therefore you must support those who are lazy, or who have made poor decisions in life.
 
So if you are required to purchase insurance or pay a fine, what happens to the homeless crack addict who can't afford either? Do they just give him free insurance? Where is the cutoff in terms of income?
 
I don't understand why I have to pay a penalty for having better health coverage and not sucking the life off of public funds such as medicaid. This is ridiculous.

And does anyone know the status of balance billing?

Because with all the increased taxes, you'll likely lose your job, which will result in you requiring govt assistance despite the objectives of those meanie, big-bad Republicans. In turn the Democrats with further exploit you with additional promises.

Honestly, none of this is about healthcare--it's really just a long term electoral strategy for dependence on govt and the party that encourages it
 
Honestly, none of this is about healthcare--it's really just a long term electoral strategy for dependence on govt and the party that encourages it

+1

God it makes my day to hear people say logical things.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Individual mandate - law that states all U.S. adults will be required to get insurance either through their place of work, through Medicare/Medicaid or through the private market. A fine will be applied for those who don't buy their own insurance. The current amount is put at $750, but this may fluctuate. Also not known is is "how much" insurance you will have to buy and exactly what it will have to cover to meet the minimum requirements.

Guaranteed issue - Insurance companies cannot turn you down for pre-existing conditions, age, gender, or any other factors. Some versions of the plan do not allow insurance companies to charge higher rates for people with pre-existing conditions, while some do.

Cadillac tax - Tax on "excessive" health plans, typically employer-provided plans. The tax is up to 40% on plans that have a dollar value of $8500 for an individual or $23,500 for a family. The unions are against this, and it may change, or the caps may be raised.


Do you know the theory behind individual mandate? I read somewhere that for "the plan to work" individual mandate had to be part of it. That just sounds spooky
 
Do you know the theory behind individual mandate? I read somewhere that for "the plan to work" individual mandate had to be part of it. That just sounds spooky

Yes, insurance requires spreading of risk, and if the low-risk people don't get insurance, it becomes unaffordable for those who do purchase it.
 
What exactly does the Cadillac tax do? Does this penalize those of us with good health plans?

The "Cadillac tax" is actually a really good thing, as it is the first little step toward taxing health benefits. The exclusion of employer sponsored health benefits represents a $250 billion subsidy that provides an incentive for people to spend more money on health care.

If this did not exist, there would be more of a market force for people to choose cheaper health plans since there would not be a penalty for taking the same funds as salary instead. I think any reasonable person can see that the current system tends to hide the cost of health care from everyone...if you ever want people to be able to make decisions about their own care that take cost into account, the current subsidy for employer sponsored health care has to go away.
 
The "Cadillac tax" is actually a really good thing, as it is the first little step toward taxing health benefits. The exclusion of employer sponsored health benefits represents a $250 billion subsidy that provides an incentive for people to spend more money on health care.

If this did not exist, there would be more of a market force for people to choose cheaper health plans since there would not be a penalty for taking the same funds as salary instead. I think any reasonable person can see that the current system tends to hide the cost of health care from everyone...if you ever want people to be able to make decisions about their own care that take cost into account, the current subsidy for employer sponsored health care has to go away.

The question is whether you can buy the same quality health plan with the money you are alloted if you are to buy your own plan considering you don't have the bargaining power of however many employees the company is trying to insure.

You get choice, but at the cost of quality/value.
 
The "Cadillac tax" is actually a really good thing, as it is the first little step toward taxing health benefits. The exclusion of employer sponsored health benefits represents a $250 billion subsidy that provides an incentive for people to spend more money on health care.

If this did not exist, there would be more of a market force for people to choose cheaper health plans since there would not be a penalty for taking the same funds as salary instead. I think any reasonable person can see that the current system tends to hide the cost of health care from everyone...if you ever want people to be able to make decisions about their own care that take cost into account, the current subsidy for employer sponsored health care has to go away.


For once you and I agree. We need to get rid of the employer-based health insurance. I don't agree that the "Cadillac tax" is the way to go. Instead I would simply tax health benefits at the regular income tax rates.

If people could buy their own insurance, and we could end state insurance monopolies, consumers would ensure that costs went down, the companies would be more competitive with each other, and likely private plans would be available to more people.
 
For once you and I agree. We need to get rid of the employer-based health insurance. I don't agree that the "Cadillac tax" is the way to go. Instead I would simply tax health benefits at the regular income tax rates.
Yeah, I would too, but if you think about it the Cadillac tax is still a half step in that direction. It's more regressive, but it may be the camel's nose under the tent.

If people could buy their own insurance, and we could end state insurance monopolies, consumers would ensure that costs went down, the companies would be more competitive with each other, and likely private plans would be available to more people.
I totally agree.
 
My understanding is that the House bill has a provision that would make Medicaid reimburse at the same rate as Medicare. Anybody else catch that?
 
My understanding is that the House bill has a provision that would make Medicaid reimburse at the same rate as Medicare. Anybody else catch that?

That would be disastrous for two reasons:

1. Paying Medicare rates for Medicaid accomplishes nothing, as many physicians/clinics already lose money on Medicare and refuse to take new patients.

2. Mecicare and Medicaid are already bankrupting the system. Paying Medicare rates amounts to an expansion of costs, which could likely bankrupt the country in a very short amount of time.
 
So medicare pays more than medicaid? Currently?

I thought it was bad for us, I feel real bad for the cardiologists and radiologists.... those guys are getting hammered.
 
So medicare pays more than medicaid? Currently?

I thought it was bad for us, I feel real bad for the cardiologists and radiologists.... those guys are getting hammered.


This is state dependent. In Arizona my understanding is medicaid pays more than medicare.. Medicaid is basically a STATE program with some funding from the feds.
 
What does or does not pass may be a lot different after Tuesday, if the Republican candidate for the special election in Massachusetts wins.

Normally that would be true, however there are two things which may happen that allows healthcare to pass even in the unlikely event that a Republican wins Ted Kennedy's seat:

1. The Democrats in power in MA have promised to hold up the election certification until after healthcare is voted on in the Senate.

2. If they can't delay the certification long enough, Democrats may just ram through the Senate proposal. The Senate has already approved the measure, and it would only need to pass the House and a conference addendum would have to pass in the Senate.
 
Looks like Scott Brown will probably win. They are going to try to pull some strings to revoke the voting privileges of Kennedy's temporary replacement.

If Brown can get in there in time, the health care bill will be finished.
 
If Brown can get in there in time, the health care bill will be finished.
Not necessarily. The bill has already passed the Senate and if needed the House could simply pass the same version. If they are not willing to then it will have been the Democrats that were responsible for killing it.
 
Not necessarily. The bill has already passed the Senate and if needed the House could simply pass the same version. If they are not willing to then it will have been the Democrats that were responsible for killing it.

Unlikely to get passed in time. If Democrats attempt to stall the confirmation of Brown (now elected to the Senate) then there are numerous legal avenues that could be used to prevent legislation from passing, including a possible supreme court challenge.

As of now, barring some sort of miracle for the Democrats, the current health bill is dead! :D:D:D:D:D:D
 
Unlikely to get passed in time. If Democrats attempt to stall the confirmation of Brown (now elected to the Senate) then there are numerous legal avenues that could be used to prevent legislation from passing, including a possible supreme court challenge.

As of now, barring some sort of miracle for the Democrats, the current health bill is dead! :D:D:D:D:D:D

You don't seem to understand how the system works. A bill has already been passed in the Senate, and if the House is willing to adopt it then it doesn't matter who fills the MA seat. Brown is irrelevant if the House passes the bill that was already voted on.
 
You don't seem to understand how the system works. A bill has already been passed in the Senate, and if the House is willing to adopt it then it doesn't matter who fills the MA seat. Brown is irrelevant if the House passes the bill that was already voted on.

I do understand it. There are legitimate legal challenges that can be raised. The existing Senator from MA is appointed, and the law is such that he is the Senator until the people elect a new one, which happened tonight. Additionally in past elections, the new person elected has been seated within 2-3 days of the election, not 2 weeks + like they are currently talking about. Those are the legal grounds I am speaking of which legislators may pursue a lawsuit. Whether or not the Supreme Court chooses to intervene in the case is another matter entirely.

You are correct in that if a suit isn't raised the House can simply pass the Senate Bill and send it to the President. The odds of them being able to tweak it later are slim, as the only option open to them at this point to change it would be through reconciliation. That process would allow 51 votes, but would only concern matters of spending and taxation, not regulations or other major portions of the House Bill.
 
The preliminary indications from various news sources are that the democrats in the House are resistant enough to the Senate Bill not to pass it, and the other various powers that be are chagrined and stunned enough at losing Kennedy's seat that they're not going to try and do anything obstructionist or sleazy with the senate confirmation.

Let the tyranny of the minority rise again!
 
The preliminary indications from various news sources are that the democrats in the House are resistant enough to the Senate Bill not to pass it, and the other various powers that be are chagrined and stunned enough at losing Kennedy's seat that they're not going to try and do anything obstructionist or sleazy with the senate confirmation.

Let the tyranny of the minority rise again!


It's actually in Obama's best interest for the House to not pass anything. That way they take the blame in 2010, and Obama will not have to sign anything into law and will claim that he is not at fault.
 
So what's going on with the bill? My thinking is it will unlikely pass the way the Dems want it. A watered down version maybe?

And what about the SGR??
 
Veers, I've been following your opinions with regards to healthcare reform, and I too thought it was done when Pelosi didn't have the votes to pass the senate bill in the house. However, I read something today that I found disturbing ... what do you make of this

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/pelosi-pushes-billion-fix-senate-health-care/

to me ... it seems like a hail mary, and one that is unable to work (especially with nervous democrats and the word 'reconciliation'), but I'm just confused with Obama saying not to do anything without Brown seated, then telling them to forge forward last night, and now Pelosi taking this as trying to use reconciliation???
 
Last edited:
Theoretically they can still pass something under "reconciliation" a procedure whereby they need 51 votes to pass budget-related items. That is what the article is referring to. What Pelosi wants to do is pass a budget bill that includes "fixes" to the Senate bill. Since they are budget-related they could be passed with 51 votes in the Senate. It would not be the entire health bill, as arguably items like the "individual mandate" don't involve budget items.

Will they do this? I think it's highly unlikely, though many of the so-called "progessive" Democrats seem to have an almost fanatical drive towards self-destruction.

In the end I think self-preservation will kick in for many Democrats, and they won't use the reconciliation option.

Why the Democrats don't just pass things that can get through with bipartisan support, like ending the insurance anti-trust exemption and tort reform is beyond me.


Veers, I've been following your opinions with regards to healthcare reform, and I too thought it was done when Pelosi didn't have the votes to pass the senate bill in the house. However, I read something today that I found disturbing ... what do you make of this

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/pelosi-pushes-billion-fix-senate-health-care/

to me ... it seems like a hail mary, and one that is unable to work (especially with nervous democrats and the word 'reconciliation'), but I'm just confused with Obama saying not to do anything without Brown seated, then telling them to forge forward last night, and now Pelosi taking this as trying to use reconciliation???
 
This is pretty much dead now. Everything seems to be appropriately (IMO) focused on jobs and the economy.. Thank god.
 
Top