Local health care providers cautiously optimistic
JANESVILLE — Local health care providers were generally supportive Monday of health care legislation that's on its way to an eager President Barack Obama, who signed it into law today.
But as expected with legislation chronicled in more than 2,000 pages, the devil's in the details, providers said.
Topping the local list is expanded health care coverage for an estimated 32 million uninsured Americans starting in 2014.
"From a provider perspective, overall it's a positive piece of legislation, a good bill," said Michael Heifetz, vice president of governmental affairs for Dean Health System & SSM Health Care of Wisconsin.
"Anytime you can add coverage, that's good."
The expanded coverage will open proper health care channels to millions of people who have been forced to put off routine doctor's visits. Often, their only health care treatment comes at emergency rooms, where providers are not reimbursed for the cost of the care.
"It's much better to have them come in the front door rather than through the ER," Heifetz said. "This new insurance will provide primary care and consistent care rather than crisis care."
Mercy Health System Vice President Rich Gruber agreed.
"The ER is the most expensive setting in the hospital," Gruber said. "This will allow more people to get on a regular cycle of health care and contribute to their overall health much earlier than a visit to the ER where things can be out of control."
The bill also expands the federal/state Medicaid program to cover people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.
Steve Brenton is president of the Wisconsin Hospital Association, which represents more than 130 hospitals and health care systems. He said that while the new legislation expands Medicaid coverage for the poor, Wisconsin hospitals aren't likely to experience a boom in Medicaid cases.
"Wisconsin already has a liberal Medicaid program for the medically indigent," he said. "We already cover all of that, so we won't see a big bump on the Medicaid side.
"Any increase we might see would come from low income health care subsidies for people who work but who aren't on their employer's health plan."
State providers also will be affected by changes to Medicare, the health insurance program for seniors, Brenton said.
Over time, the annual inflation rate of Medicare reimbursements will be cut, he said. In the next 10 years, that could cost Wisconsin providers $2 billion.
But there also are Medicare initiatives that could reward Wisconsin, which is generally regarded as a state that runs a high quality, low cost program.
"We have long argued that Medicare reform should recognize and reward high quality care with incentives, and this legislation could help do that," Brenton said.
Heifetz said Medicare is geared to pay for health care volume rather than value.
"That should be reversed," he said. "This bill and our delegation addressed that so that there will be incentives in place for high quality health care."
Heifetz said public programs such as Medicaid and Medicare don't adequately reimburse providers, but the legislation includes provisions to address that.
The expected rewards for Medicare quality might offset any losses by more Medicaid patients, he said.
Insurance business
In addition to being providers, Mercy and Dean also are health insurers.
Gruber and Heifetz said the new legislation includes positives and negatives for that side of their businesses.
"We have a number of financial concerns," Heifetz said. "For one, the bill will cost $950 billion, and they have to get that from somewhere.
"To their credit, they recognize that, but much of it will come from providers, insurers and the drug manufacturers."
Heifetz said another concern is that Dean's is a small, provider-sponsored plan.
"Plans like ours aren't the ones they're targeting in Washington, the big national plans that have become such flashpoints for abuse," he said. "We're just concerned that any changes keep the playing field level for everyone."
"As a provider sponsored plan, our administrative costs are in the single digits, something you don't see on the national level."
The bill also includes insurance market reforms that forbid insurers from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies because someone gets sick.
Those are significant steps, said Mercy's Gruber.
"It will certainly create a high risk insurance pool that people will have to join, but the bottom line is that insurance plans can't let people fall through the cracks," he said.
As a result, MercyCare and others will face a new set of challenges.
"We will have to continue to find new ways to be cost effective," Gruber said. "MercyCare already underwrites the state's BadgerCare program, and we do it quite cost effectively.
"That's good for the patient, good for the company and good for the taxpayers who are footing the bills."
As it stands now, Brenton said the legislation presents a mixed bag for Wisconsin providers and insurers.
As significant as the legislation is, it's most disappointing aspect is that it was not the result of a bipartisan effort, he said.
Gruber, too, was disappointed by the lack of bipartisanship.
But, he said, there's still time for that.
"This is a work in process," Gruber said. "In the passion of the debate, lots of things were said by both sides to help hone their position.
"But I'm confident this is not the last we'll see of health care. I just hope in the future we can see a more bipartisan approach."
How health care legislation will affect employers remains to be seen
When reporters call with questions, Cheryl DeMars usually has answers.
That wasn't the case Monday when the president and chief executive officer of The Alliance was asked about the soon-to-be enacted health care reform legislation and its impact on people already insured by employers' health plans.
In fact, DeMars answered a reporter's first question with one of her own.
"The universal question is what will happen to the cost of health care under this plan," she said.
The answer, she said, is anything but certain.
"There are just so many factors involved," she said. "So much of this bill is still to be determined that right now I don't think anyone's in a position to answer that."
Based in Madison, The Alliance is an employer-owned, not-for-profit cooperative that works to control health care costs and improve quality. Its 160 member companies provide coverage to more than 83,000 people in southern Wisconsin and portions of Iowa and Illinois.
The biggest question employers face is their contribution level to support the national plan, DeMars said.
The Alliance developed a tool to help employers gauge their potential excise taxes, but the tool was virtually outdated 48 hours after it was released, she said.
Change has happened that fast, and it will continue even after President Barack Obama signs the bill into law.
"This is just the beginning," DeMars said.
Rich Gruber, vice president at Mercy Health System, agreed, saying that he expects a new slew of health care bills as the overall legislation marches toward full enactment in the next several years.
"The devil is always in the details, and it is here," added Michael Heifetz, vice president of governmental affairs for Dean Health System and SSM Health Care of Wisconsin.
"There will be a lot of changes in the next four years—some transparent, some not," he said. "But we will keep advocating and working with Congress and the executive agencies such as Health and Human Services."
Ultimately, companies will be in a better position to assess their health care plans, DeMars said.
"So much is evolving and will continue to evolve," she said. "There will continue to be a lot of opportunity for input as things get ironed out."
Mar 25, 2010 at 2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
"And if anyone thinks that the government can control 16% of our economy better than the private sector, they are idiots. Yes we do need some reform, but a takeover of the system is suicidal."
.
So, we need reform, but the private sector alone should dictate that reform? What reform efforts have been proposed/attempted by private insurers? Have they voluntarily offered to change their practices? What incentives do they have to benefit people when their current incentive to benefit their profits is so much more enticing?
Reform does not give the government "control" of 16% of our economy. There is no "takeover," and private insurance is still receiving business (more so, actually).
Mar 25, 2010 at 8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
sarahb: my party was great. me an 3 buds sittin around w some smaller buds listenin to neil young and discussin how to fix the world:)
vato: im not sure how it will effect the marijuana movement. if this is successful hopefully it means more doctors who will talk about the benefits of natural remedies vs man made drugs. right now the big pharm reps are into what seems like every doctors pocket and who knows how many politicians' pocket. if its a financial failure that will be nothing but good for legal marijuana for 2 reasons...1)marijuana grown next to your tomatoes is CHEAP medicine(which big pharm knows;)...and B)if this bankrupts our govt, as if its not now, the pols will see the cash cow that marijuana is....sitting there waiting to be milked:)
Mar 25, 2010 at 3:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Please show where I said current or future law harmed you or me. What was that about fear mongering again?
Mar 25, 2010 at 3:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
I'll have to remember that tactic when I've lost the argument...
"I know the CURRENT law doesn't harm me, but...but...but...it might change!"
Mar 25, 2010 at 2:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
"When the argument is lost, break out the fear mongering! You just can't teach an old dog new tricks."
-
yes, you cant teach an old dog new tricks, the left always slings fear mongering as a retort to points.
How can the phrase "laws can always be changed" be taken as fear? Can laws be changed? Do laws change? If both of these are true and the statemet puts fear in you, there are others problems you have.
Mar 25, 2010 at 2:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
"I said they might eventually collect it. "
-
As did I.
Mar 25, 2010 at 2:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF wrote: "Yet. Laws can always be changed..."
When the argument is lost, break out the fear mongering! You just can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Mar 25, 2010 at 2:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
I didn't assume anything. I said they might eventually collect it. If you ever overpay your taxes, expecting a refund at the end of the year, the IRS will simply keep it, to satisfy your fine.
Mar 25, 2010 at 2:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
"The IRS can't"
-
Yet. Laws can always be changed...
Mar 25, 2010 at 2:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
"How cryptic"???
-
What part of my stance is criptic. You assume they will eventially do something as do I.
Mar 25, 2010 at 2:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
To sum up, if you can, but don't, participate in a health insurance plan, you will be fined by the IRS, but:
The IRS can't place a lien on your property.
The IRS can't seize your property.
The IRS can't impose criminal penalties.
The IRS can't impose civil penalties.
The IRS can't charge interest on your fine.
I hope that answered your question.
Mar 25, 2010 at 2:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
How cryptic. Your tin-foil hat is crooked.
Mar 25, 2010 at 2:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
"I would guess the IRS might eventually collect it, but not through criminal or civil penalties."
-
Your assumtion is not alone, others also have assumptions.
Mar 25, 2010 at 2:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom, not having income now is already covered by other programs. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or any numerous programs available base on the state they live in.
For people with no income and no wealth this NEW program offers nothing more than they already had anyway.
Mar 25, 2010 at 1:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF wrote: "Really, what happens when you don't pay the fine imposed for not buying the insurance?"
Essentially, nothing. You still owe the tax though. I would guess the IRS might eventually collect it, but not through criminal or civil penalties.
"The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner."
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/2...
Mar 25, 2010 at 1:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF wrote: "The current law signed by the president now requires no wages/earnings and STILL wants you to purchase something from a private company."
No where in the law does it say people with no income will have to buy private health insurance.
Mar 25, 2010 at 12:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
gpawcat, not only do other states not have a high-risk pool, HIRSP in WI carries other eligibility requirements, and is not the same as the federal pool, which will be required to keep premiums low, in line with the standard private insurance costs. So, no, it has not been done. While you may view it as crap, many will finally find piece of mind in being allowed insurance coverage for the first time.
Mar 24, 2010 at 11:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Note that there is no criminal penalty written in the health care reform bill for refusing to carry insurance."
-
Really, what happens when you don't pay the fine imposed for not buying the insurance?
Mar 24, 2010 at 11:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The argument is if the federal Government can require a person to purchase health insurance. In effect, they already do. Medicare is public health insurance for the elderly. Social Security is a public retirement fund and disability insurance."
-
Zoom, the flawed stance in your equation is these are funded through wages/earning ALONE. The current law signed by the president now requires no wages/earnings and STILL wants you to purchase something from a private company.
If you can't see the difference you have blinders on.
Mar 24, 2010 at 9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Look at Great Britain, France, & Germany's economy. They are in trouble and those people are taxed around 65%. Look at Canada, Quebec province WANT health insurance companies to come back because they are broke. You are not understanding the word bankrupt with regard to health care. If the country takes over health care and they need more money to operate, they will simply raise taxes on everyone. They keep raising taxes to supply the service. That is why countries with health care have such an enormously high tax rate. The government health care IS NOT FREE. And if anyone thinks that the government can control 16% of our economy better than the private sector, they are idiots. Yes we do need some reform, but a takeover of the system is suicidal.
Mar 24, 2010 at 6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
I have a couple of serious questions for you all to think about... I have read all the comments here and it seems like almost none of you commented on what the article said, only your own politically motivated mantra.
1. Did you read the article, and what do you think based only on what the health care professionals said in the article?
2. Have you actually read the health care reform bill YOURSELF? Not what some member of the House or Senate (of either party) told you it was about.
Do you know that CNN did a poll just before the vote of (I don't remember the exact number, but it was over 100)members of the House, they said about 2/3 of those asked admitted they had not read the bill! ( when I can find an internet reference to the actual numbers, I'll post it)
As far as I can see no one in the health care industry ( who isn't politically connected) has seen major collapse of the industry as a result of this bill.
Just like mandatory auto insurance, we all will have to obtain health insurance.For some, who can get it via work, nothing may change. For people like me, who had a heart problem, and besides the fact that it has been fixed I'm still uninsured, and marked for life as such. I now will be able to obtain insurance.
There will be people who ( like in auto insurance) will pay premiums for their entire life, and never make a claim. And I hope that there will not be major abuse of the system, that controls will be enacted to prevent that.
In another forum, I have been having a conversation with members from Sweden and Great Britain who do not understand why people are against basic health care, as they have had for most of their lives, and why a country who claims to be the world leader in so many things, is so far behind in simple health care.
In the above story local health care leaders approve of parts of this new law, stating it may lower some expense to them, because people will now be able to see their regular doctors for basic care, instead of waiting to the last minute and running to the Emergency Room.
As far as a predicted Doctor and Nurse shortage:
1. Maybe that is part of the reason why this is being phased in, to give new doctors and nurses time to finish training.
2. Wasn't some one here yelling yesterday about older employees being laid off? Maybe they will have to stop that now, and re hire some.
3. That new hospital and it's employees might be needed now, and not such a waste as some of you are claiming.
We are all looking for an improvement in the work situation, maybe this is the start.
Mar 24, 2010 at 6:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
votaloca you are loca. All law enforcement in the US acts on citizens. Where are you living?
vota, you are confusing the desire with seeing actual criminals put in jail with the right wing desire to put anyone in jail or to death the police arrest and beat a confession out of, regardless about the right's claim to the sanctity of life. Otherwise, you would support the idea of Rush going to jail like he support sending Daryl Strawberry to jail for doing what Rush did.
Mar 24, 2010 at 5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mr. Truth: we've always had those high risk pools in WI. Been there did that. Right up to the high premiums they forced a person out. Plus they never paid crap. This is like 18 years ago. And this new health care will be crap, just like 20 years ago.
Mar 24, 2010 at 4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
O.K., bad grammer.
If no one can be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition under the new law, why would it matter how an insurance company defines a pre-existing condition?
Mar 24, 2010 at 4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
vatoloco, if no one can be denied insurance becuase of a pre-existing conditions under the new law, why would it matter how an insurance company defines a pre-existing condition?
Mar 24, 2010 at 4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
You seem a little confused, vatoloco.
Anyone who has been denied insurance by a company for the reason of "pre-existing condition," as defined by the company(ies) that denied them, may voluntarily enter a high-risk insurance pool that will be established by the government within 90 days. No "tracking" is required.
The government will not need to have their own definition of "pre-existing condition," because no one will be denied insurance for ANY condition. In 6 months, anyone who applies for insurance may not be denied insurance.
Mar 24, 2010 at 4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
"And you should be put to death by our law enforcement."
Wow snazzy, I thought your high moral superiority prevented you from being evil and have the utternmost compassion for human beings.
People like you usaully hate law enforcement and support the perpetrators. Oh yeah I know, you only like to utilize law enforcement against our own citizens such as the case in Waco.
Mar 24, 2010 at 3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Within 90 days, those with pre-existing conditions"
ICT-Who from the government is responsible to track who has a pre-existing condition? Maybe a better quesiton is "What is considered to be a pre-existing condition", Insurance companies have their way of defining pre-existing conditions, will the government have their own way?
I know that there are normal ones like, taking meds for high blood presssure etc..Does this open up new medical conditions that can be deemed pre-existing situations?
Mar 24, 2010 at 3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Within 90 days, those with pre-existing conditions who have been denied insurance will be able to join a high-risk insurance pool established specifically for them by the government. In 6 months, it will be illegal for any insurance provider to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. This has been a part of the bill since it was passed and signed into law.
Mar 24, 2010 at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
News Flash: A Democrat just came on cable news and said they will fix the child coverage. Everything is cool.
Mar 24, 2010 at 3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Only children with health coverage now with preexisting conditions are covered.
A child with no health insurance now will have coverage in 2014.
What I like about this bill is, the IRS don't care if you are liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, You will pay!
Mar 24, 2010 at 2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
thekidd347 - with your stance toward legalization (which I support), you should be against government action which takes our personal freedoms. Mandating we have health insurance or be fined over $2k per family by the federal government is a loss of our personal freedoms.
Mar 24, 2010 at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes, andre_linoge, laws do control people. "Shocking," isn't it?
Mar 24, 2010 at 1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
I find it hard to believe that Sarah with 3 supposed degrees and 30 years in the medical field cannot get health insurance from her employer or purchase insurance. It sounds like a whole lot of "issues" going on with Sarah.
Sarah, wrote,
" I do work and have done so for more than 30 years. I have three college degrees, one of them a master's degree. And, guess what? I am without health insurance! This is not going to drive businesses out; they will get tax incentives or breaks to do what needs to be done. It's baloney to say that anyone without insurance has the same access to health care as those with insurance. I am a registered nurse....
Mar 24, 2010 at 1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
I do'nt see or hear of those that want to spread the wealth in DC. working for free . They ares tiil getiing paid big money
Mar 24, 2010 at 1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
SarahB1 you are an embarrassment to real nurses everywhere. I hope that you do not find your nursing job eliminated as so many will be.
Mar 24, 2010 at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Children with pre-existing conditions are covered under the bill now, adults without insurance because of pre-existing conditions can get help now. All adults with those conditions covered in 2014.
Mar 24, 2010 at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
No coverage for children with preexisting conditions until 2014. Pay up people! NOW!
Mar 24, 2010 at 1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Speaking of good things kidd, how do you see this healthcare bill affecting the legalization of mari jane?
Mar 24, 2010 at 12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
vato if you are going to predict the future you should predict good things...
Mar 24, 2010 at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sarah-We can also thank them for future doctor shortages and longer wait times.
Mar 24, 2010 at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
nothins with me woodsman. whats with you??;)
Mar 24, 2010 at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
More taxpayer money will go to hospitals for services. Big surprise hospitals are behind this current healthcare bill.
Mar 24, 2010 at 11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
To further comment on the insurance requirement, violations of the law will be handled through the IRS, just like FICA is now. Note that there is no criminal penalty written in the health care reform bill for refusing to carry insurance.
Mar 24, 2010 at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF wrote: "Interesting the left is saying requiring a person purchase insurance from a private company is a good idea, but taking confiscated money, for social security, and investing it as you want in private companies is a bad idea."
Most on the left are actually saying that everyone should have universal (public) insurance. Buying insurance from a private company is a compromise, not ideal.
Mar 24, 2010 at 11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF said: "In your reference you are not purchasing anything. In the healthcare bill you are required to participate just for breathing. A huge distinction."
There is no huge distinction. The argument is if the federal Government can require a person to purchase health insurance. In effect, they already do. Medicare is public health insurance for the elderly. Social Security is a public retirement fund and disability insurance. You and your employer contribute through the FICA (Federal INSURANCE Contributions Act) tax (or just you, in the case of the Self-Employment Contributions Act). You receive benefits from those taxes.
Mar 24, 2010 at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Something is disconnected.
Mar 24, 2010 at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gary, that is where the disconnect is between most on the left from most on the right.
Most on the right want what is best for the country as a whole, not best for themselves.
Most on the right don't want the government to control more aspects of society not because of fear of socialism, but because of the history of running failed over-bloated and over budget programs that have NEVER met their established purpose, promise, or goals.
Most on the right are able to see this for more of the same old, tired, and failed policies of the past. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result.
Mar 24, 2010 at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
This is the kid's 24th media appearance.
If you truly look at the facts, the mother died 9 months after she was let go from her job. At that point, she could have applied for medical assistance through Washington, which apparently has quite a generous public assistance program.
There are a lot of unanswered questions, and to put a child out there like that is just crazy. It makes it so any logical debate on the issue can't be done without someone pointing to the child and pouting.
Mar 24, 2010 at 9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
I just can't understand why so many people are upset about this terrible bill. This should be the best thing to happen to Republicans in years. By their reckoning, this bill should be so unpopular that it will absolutely guarantee them both houses of Congress and the White House. They should be dancing in the streets after this huge blunder by the Democrats. It was very touching to see and hear John Boehner's concern for the Democrat's chances in November. Such a sweet guy.
Mar 24, 2010 at 9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
I became a fan "Fire Nancy Pelosi" on facebook!
Mar 24, 2010 at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Your next step to Socialism has begun. And, it's a big one. I wish someone would tell me what they want with Socialism. Free health care? You would be an idiot to think it is FREE. Spreading of the wealth? This is the United States. We all know the United States is not what it was. We are destroying ourselves and we are all to blame. Get involved in the next election and start expressing your conservative views. The h____ with being politically correct. The people in control of our wonderful country have never run a business, made a payroll and many did not create their own wealth.
Mar 24, 2010 at 8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
If you look long term this bill was designed to bankrupt the private insurance industry. Once the private industry goes under democrats will be able to push for a universal health care system like the rest of the world.
Mar 24, 2010 at 8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
thank you, now America takes another step to confirming their stance as the Great Satan, or acting like the great satan....
Mar 24, 2010 at 7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Thank you Obama for declaring a horrible problem and an affirming that human beings, regardless of their economic situation, deserve health care. The system as it is, is set up so that people work like dogs, consume like gluttons, and then get terribly sick or go to nursing homes-either the medical system or the nursing homes eat up every trace of their existence on the planet. Consume, consume, consume, and then leave quietly without a trace. A perfect extreme capitalist machine.
Mar 24, 2010 at 6:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom...Great examples of two well run, extremely efficient government programs. Would you mind telling us how financially sound Medicare and Social Security are?
Mar 24, 2010 at 5:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Look out for Big BROTHER. THIS is what our FOR FATHER FOUGHT AGAINEST
Mar 24, 2010 at 1:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Interesting the left is saying requiring a person purchase insurance from a private company is a good idea, but taking confiscated money, for social security, and investing it as you want in private companies is a bad idea.
Mar 24, 2010 at 1:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom you are confused. Confiscatory taxation is not buying in your reference to medicare and social security.
In your reference you are not purchasing anything. In the healthcare bill you are required to participate just for breathing. A huge distinction.
Mar 24, 2010 at 1:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lets get the hospital bill lowered too besides just getting insurance. My insurance will cover the bill that i just got but for my daughters check up and 5yr shots cost over $600 are you kidding me. thats out ridiculous
Mar 24, 2010 at 12:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Let's see, must cover students until age 26 (I'm sorry, but I should be subsidizing someone's insurance while they get their doctorate), no coverage limits, can't drop anyone. Do you think premiums are going up? Seriously? Really? Think about it.. Then, in 2013 (after elections and most likely on the new Presidents watch) everyone has to have coverage and the government has to subsidize it. We're already short on doctors and nurses. No tort reform? OK, so now thousands more will have potential lawsuits. Will doctors be able to afford malpractice insurance? This was a very reckless piece of legislation that was, not only partisan, but not completely thought out for the long term ramifications. Apparently a years worth of mostly partisan health care bill finagling and patchwork politics is adequate enough for something that impacts 1/6th of our economy. Good luck sticking to the 900 billion cost estimate. That won't even cover all the new government agencies that will be required to maintain this monstrosity much less subsidizing everyone who doesn't have insurance.
Mar 23, 2010 at 10:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
ski1357, the Federal Government already mandates that you buy health insurance and contribute to a retirement fund (Medicare and Social Security, respectively), through your wages earned. Those funds also go to government entities, which seems more restrictive than having to purchase minimal health insurance on the private market if your employer doesn't already provide your health insurance.
Mar 23, 2010 at 10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
NV, I'm not whining. I said there are good things in the bill, but the government can't make us buy anything. The countries in Europe and the rest of the world do not have a Constitution like ours that limits the powers of the government.
Mar 23, 2010 at 9:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
And our country wanted to LOWER costs ??? This law, if it survives, will increase costs like it has in every state universal health care has been attempted.
Mar 23, 2010 at 9:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
DiWhiner and the little whiners are in rare form after their health care loss. Growing nearer the rest of the civilized world in terms of health care is tough for them to swallow. Take a couple of asprin and go to bed boys. Everything will look brighter in the morning.
Mar 23, 2010 at 9:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
DavidG- Good post. Thanks.
Mar 23, 2010 at 9:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
I do have to say that there are a few very good things in this bill. Like limits on premium increases, restricting insurance companies from dropping people when they get sick, and allowing people to get insurance when they have pre-existing conditions. My biggest problem in this bill is the individual mandate. It is completely unconstitutional for our government to tell us that we have to buy ANY product or service. This is just like telling every American that he/she has to buy a new car from Ford, GM, or Chrysler. This is where this bill will fail. IMO.
Mar 23, 2010 at 9:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Come on readers. This is an excellent column. Very well written and honest. They just do not know the full impact yet. While there are likely problems with the legislation, the good clearly outweighs the bad. Lets hope we don't break this before it has a chance to work.
Mar 23, 2010 at 8:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think this was a BIG MISTAKE. I think they ( the government ) should pay there own insurance.Man our Government is putting us in the pooper.
Mar 23, 2010 at 8:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Opinionsforfree: Is that a threat to our elected officials. If so you better be looking out your windows for the CIA!
Mar 23, 2010 at 8:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Only if a bomb could have been dropped on that group of people would this country be a better place
Mar 23, 2010 at 8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sandman- the 11 year old boy’s name is Marcelas Owens, not “GARY COLEMAN” and his Mom lost her health insurance, couldn’t afford treatment and died. Yup, you are really humorous.
Mar 23, 2010 at 7:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
How long do you suppose it will take the Healthcare providers and Insurance companies to figure out a way to use this bill to their advantage?
Mar 23, 2010 at 7:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
NV Grf--"Get over it righties. More change to come."
Says the clueless wonder who believes Medicare is an example of a successful and efficient government program:)
That's the problem with democrats--simple accounting makes absolutely no sense to them. You have Medicare--a seriously broken government sponsored program drowning in fraud and waste($500 billion worth). It's scheduled to go broke in 7 years. So they're idea of partly funding HC Reform with diverting money(over $100 billion) from Medicare is stupid to say the least.....As more about this mess comes to light, the more than the public will rebel against it. I'm glad that the entire Republican party distanced themselves from this disaster. Great move considering the next round of elections coming up....:)
Mar 23, 2010 at 7:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
It's nice that O'Bama included GARY COLEMAN in the photo op--he's had health problems for years! Maybe he's getting ready for a come-back, like Michael Jackson...
Mar 23, 2010 at 6:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
The government is going to provide health care insurance for tens of millions of people now. At the same time they'll slash medicare payments, and reduce the deficit. Everyone will now have affordable health care. It will cost an estimated 1 trillion dollars over ten years that will partially be paid for by tax increases on the wealthy. This is on top of everything else we gave them from our taxes, plus running over a trillion deficit + printing countless extra dollars without a proportional increase in goods or population. This year will be the same, too. The year after that will be like that too?
People say health care is a right, but health care as we know it is less than 100 years old! Widespread health care insurance didn't happen until after WWII, and it was the government's wage freeze that started it.
I feel like I'm living in the land of OZ, and everybody is in the poppy field.
Mar 23, 2010 at 6:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
The problem is we have a 2 party system that's out of control. You have to vote party line or oh lord there is heck to be payed from within your own party. Here are a few suggestions that might help people actually start talking and debating the issues at hand.
1. Everyone runs as a independent no funneling of money from the left or the right.
2. Big one here "Term Limits" on the congress and senate 8 years should be the max just like the president. This would shift power of all these career politicians and let new voices be heard at the min amount of every 8 years.
3. Popular vote should decide the presidential race it's like that for every congressman or official that is voted into office "disclaimer here" I voted for Bush the first time but in my opinion he lost the race to Gore.
4. Set limits in political coffers when they are running for a particular office. So much wasted money here it is ridiculous any money collected over the limit can go straight towards the deficit or social security that would be way better for America than extra commercials of them bickering about each other.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)
I hope I don't fall into this category but I probably do.....
Mar 23, 2010 at 5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
What's with the kid????????????
Mar 23, 2010 at 5:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is the change I voted for.
.
The_One, people without employer-provided insurance will only have it paid for if they are eligible for subsidies. Otherwise they are subject to the same individual mandate as everyone else. Employers who take this cynical approach may well create a race to the bottom, which is why a single-payer plan would have been far superior. In any case, if there are that many employers who find it valuable to compete by cutting benefits, Congress will have to revisit the issue of employer-provided health care. In the end, though, very few industrialized countries rely on it and none as much as the US has since it was made mandatory in the Nixon administration.
Mar 23, 2010 at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Get over it righties. More change to come.
Mar 23, 2010 at 4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well isn't this great now my employer can drop mine and everyone of my co-workers insurance... Pay a lesser fine then it would to insure their employees. While the state and federal government pays for the bill... Oh which I by the way also have to pay in taxes... As its been said before... Its Obama's fault and this time it really is!
Mar 23, 2010 at 4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Less freedom"
GOOD BYE OBAMA 12
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.