![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
You might as well read it because no one in the House will.
You might as well read it because no one in the House will.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-151293-100x100.png\")
I agree with both Coles_Law and cmdrsass. They're most likely going to have a team of aides pour over it, then have them deliver a nutshell version before the vote. Problem is, with a bill that huge, there's likely going to be many, many flaws and loopholes that won't get closed or simply go unnoticed altogether. There simply isn't enough time with they way they're hoping to push this through.
I bet a lot of these people are going to vote on this thing, one way or another, without even knowing what they're voting on. Then again, what's new?
Their aides will provide synopses and maybe some Congressmen will read one or two sections in which they have an interest. It's going to wind up in conference anyway so they'll have another crack at it.
Notice that every time there's an important piece of tax legislation, say one of the 500 page bills, there's a technical corrections act within a year to fix what was screwed up in the original legislation. I wouldn't care to lay odds on the health care bill being final as enacted. There probably will be technical corrections for the next ten years.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-716547-100x100.png\")
Nobody is going to read the bill, which of course will have a couple hundred pages of additional nonsense that will cost even more money added to it. Plus, when bills are named they usually do the opposite of what they intend. So the \"America's Affordable Health Choices Act\" will be neither affordable or offer any choices and will ruin people's health. The fools on the hill have a track record of creating way more problems when they try to fix things.
Now here is the best summary of the thing in just four words:
You will get screwed.
Just one of the few things the bill would do:
1. Penalize small businesses
\"Under the House measure, employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage.\"
2. Sick Americans get coverage, but require Americans to get insurance or face penalties
\"The House measure would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals who are sick, while also requiring most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty equal to about 2.5% of their gross income.\"
and
3. Raise taxes
\"The legislation calls for a 5.4% surtax on those with annual gross incomes exceeding $1 million.
Households with annual income between $500,000 a year and $1 million would be hit with a 1.5% surtax, and those earning between $350,000 and $500,000 would face a 1% surtax. Those rates could eventually increase to 3% and 2%, respectively, if the government doesn't achieve certain health-cost savings.\"
Only some of the cost is known
\"The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday calculated the cost of the House's plan to expand insurance coverage at $1.04 trillion over 10 years, and predicted the measure would eventually lead 97% of legal American residents to have insurance.
The estimate doesn't factor in the plan to pay for the bill, including the new tax on wealthy Americans, or certain changes to Medicare and Medicaid, all of which could affect the final price tag.\"
Of course, this could die/change in the Senate.
@Bryan Fernandez: So businesses that have been leeching from their workforce need to finally pay up, Americans who have been leeching from public healthcare by not getting insurance and sticking the bill on the hospitals who are forced to treat them, and the rich who have been leeching from 90% of Americans in the first place, all have to pay up.
Dont see anything wrong with that.
BTW you gain NO sympathy by sectioning out \"3. Raise taxes\" and the underlying truth, that its only going to raise taxes on the UPPER class.
@Jim Topoleski: I am not sure why we should have the rich pay for our health care. They are already having their taxes raised in other ways and they only have so much. Taxing the rich is not going to help us much more. I know you want THEIR money but they already pay more towards our services than you or me.
I don't think just because businesses can't afford to pay their employees health insurance does not mean they are leeching. It all depends on what you think your employer owes you. The price of insurance has been going up and up and people haven't cared because they figured the employer will pay the extra amount. It DOES come from somewhere and in the end we pay anyway. Just sticking it to the employers just gives the health care industry a blank check and is a huge reason for the unchecked growth.
So when the businesses start to lose money from those raised taxes, what do they do to improve their bottom line?
They either a) raise the price of their product which hurts consumers
or b) fire employees to reduce their costs.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-3857-100x100.png\")
Personally, I think there should be a constitutional amendment limiting laws to no more than 100 (or pick your own arbitrary, but reasonable, number) pages so that we can actually see what they are voting on.
I see TWO major problems with the 1 page summary that make NO sense.
\"Require public option to meet the same benefit requirements...\"
How many different options are out there right now? Is this law going to establish a floor, which by default will become the only benefits offered by an insurance company? Also, every state has different requirements, from things like CA I think requires some kind of fertility coverage, some states now dictate no-copays for mammograms (did you see the study that said that as soon as a copay hit $12, more women refused to get a mammogram? There's the problem with health care in the U.S. right there - when $12 is too much to pay for your own health)...so are they going to make 50 different plans? Or are they going to change the playing field like it's been rumored, such as - if you offer behavioral health, you must offer it at the same level as medical, so no more restrictions on behavioral health claims....
Second:
\"Public option must be financially self-sustaining....\" But I thought the problem was that people couldn't afford the insurance in the first place, not that they didn't make it a priority in their lives - you never see that breakdown in the #s of uninsured people - how many are young, healthy, and would rather spend their money on going out on weekends, buying fancy clothes, etc. than on health insurance, which is readily available.
The health insurance industry is already willing to give up preexisting condition clauses so long as everyone is required to buy insurance of some kind. The biggest problem that can arise is if the public option is low price, they will put all the other insurance companies out of business quickly, as employers will go to the cheapest route. Just like if they tax \"excess\" (excess being defined as costing more than a set amount unless you work for Congress or the White House, since they are a special group, even the President refused to answer that question about using the public insurance option) benefits - do you think employers will want to offer a plan that causes taxes on their employees or themselves?
@ShruggingGalt: I think what you say about people not wanting to spend $12 on a test speaks volumes. We would rather spend our money on other things like cable and SUV's than our own health care. We just expect that it should be free because of how the our health care plans have developed.
Having others pay for it has lead to it huge growth in cost because it has not had to follow the normal rules of affordability.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-171970-100x100.png\")
@frank64: bite me & the others unable to AFFORD the $12 co-pay.
crap pay, crap coverage - doesn't leave anything left for that $12 co-pay.
@ShruggingGalt: \"The health insurance industry is already willing to give up preexisting condition clauses so long as everyone is required to buy insurance of some kind. The biggest problem that can arise is if the public option is low price, they will put all the other insurance companies out of business quickly, as employers will go to the cheapest route.\"
Not at all. Right now NJ has a state heath plan for public employees and we where moved to it from a private health plan.
We are seuing the Board of Ed for this because our contract says like or better, and the State health plan is NOT better, in the fact that we have to pay more money.
Trust me there will ALWAYS be private health insurance because there will ALWAYS be a better coverage option. Will it be AS profitable, not likely, but they'll find a way.
My main complaint about the article is the site's navigation - who in their right mind uses Javascript for the prev / next links AND has the new page bounce up to the top?
Either have the same effect with just a normal link OR have the page dynamically reload certain parts.
IMO: Javascript does NOT belong in links. Period.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-851357-100x100.png\")
It's an EMERGENCY! Do not read the bill. Do not debate the bill. Just vote \"Aye\" and move on to the next emergency.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-232165-100x100.png\")
SO instead of fixing our medical problems we're going to put a band aid on it. Fine people who are probably poor anyway with tax burdens to get medical. Then we're going to pretend to tax the rich who will find ways around this (they seem to always do). why don't they make it socialized like every other Industrialized nation. Just adopt Germany's idea it's the least socialist.
BTW for those in that work for large multinational corporations this bill does what?
@Skankingmike: Nothing. Large corps are not considered the problem. Obama has said if you like your plan now you can keep it. It MIGHT tax it if it is considered a high end plan(I think a corporate tax), but nothing is a done deal
Another mis-named government bill. Socialized drugs and surgery is what it is, proven in other countries to be expensive and inefficient. Of course, we will be forced to pay for the killing of unborn babies, too.
The drug (poison) companies and insurance rackets will benefit, though.
Those of us who want to simply eat right and exercise to avoid the sick-care industry are just gonna be up shit creek. Impending total food control will force all to be ill (eventually) and look to the sick-care industry for remedies. That that doesn't work well is already quite evident.
My6 main concern: It's a 1018 page bill that they're planning on voting on by the end of the week? Who is going to read it fully in two days? Are there legislative Cliff's Notes?
@Coles_Law: Welcome to the Legislative Branch.
You realize half the reason most of our rights have been eaten away was thanks to the Patriot bill being put forward and not ONE person read it?