Okay, I'm being facetious, but as I discussed before, a Cadillac insurance plan is usually described as a high premium policy. Generally speaking, that means an insurance plan that is expensive coverage, and usually defined by the total cost of the insurance premiums, rather than what healthcare coverage the patient actually gets. Let's say some poor Joe was able to get healthcare coverage even with a pre-existing and had astronomically high premiums. Voila! He'd be in the Cadillac insurance category! How fair is that?
I have heard one individual say that it could depend upon what type of coverage you had; in other words, if you had insurance that covered dental and vision, that could be considered a Cadillac insurance plan.
When I was younger, I had insurance coverage based upon what I could afford to pay out of pocket in premiums, co-pays and deductibles. And it was sort of a balancing act between out of pocket expenses and how much coverage I could get. Just getting started in life, I didn't have a much extra cash on hand to pay for the occasional drugs and doctor visits and I certainly didn't have anything that I could save since I was just starting out. So, I had to have low deductibles and co-pays. I could also opt for a policy that would pay a higher percentage of the healthcare cost in the event of hospital visits, etc. - if I could afford it in the additional premium cost. Of course, all that meant was my payroll deducted premium would be somewhat higher than average. So, I guess I had a "Cadillac" policy and didn't know it.
So, just who is it that have these Cadillac plans in the government's estimation? Getting a straight and definitive answer is about the same as asking them if they can say with certainty what is and what is not included in the healthcare bills from the House and Senate... all five versions apparently say different things. And who the heck really knows since they're not reading the darn things???
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee, had set the threshold for most people at $8,000 in annual premiums for an individual and $21,000 for a family. However, the estimate is that only 2 or 3 percent of covered workers and families would hit that benchmark, so there are clearly not going to be enough people to "rob from" through taxes to cover the 40-million-some-odd people who supposedly don't have any coverage. In fact, the Baucus plan still leaves about 15 million without coverage.
So, besides taxing the very tiny percentage of people who fall into the rich category and robbing $500B from the old folks' Medicare Advantage plan (for which they pay extra to have!), there hasn't been any other revelation as to how this healthcare reform is going to be (1) deficit neutral and (2) not increase taxes on the middle and lower income people.
That presents a major problem. So, just how will the politicians decide what constitutes a Cadillac insurance plan? Oh, that's easy. They're going to review the majority of the plans that the 90% of Americans have now. They're going to determine the average coverage and then determine that anything above that average will be considered the "Cadillac".
As mentioned before, the BaucuSCARE bill isn't going to cover everyone. They're still saying that 15 million or more will not be covered. So, the arbitrary number of the 47 million, which had dropped down to something in the high 30 millions (you just pick any huge number) only about half of them will be covered under his plan. How is that so much better than what we have now? We will still have the lawyers skinning doctors and drug companies alive. We will still have drug companies gouging US citizens while practically giving drugs to other countries for pennies on the dollar. We will still have the Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse.... all of which will remain under HR3200 AND the Baucus' bill - as well as any of the others, I'm sure. So, ALL of the problems with our current US healthcare system we'll just carry those over to the next healthcare system, and for the switch we'll have less quality care, but add 15 million "to the rolls" who are basically getting free medical care now.... just check any hospital emergency room!
The other thing of great concern is the fact that when the new healthcare reform act is passed and signed by the president, the changes will not take effect immediately. Paying for the plan will begin immediately, but the actual plan itself will not be implemented until 2013. That means that we will be paying for a healthcare plan over three years before we can utilize its benefits. (Why don't I go buy a real Cadillac right now on a ten-year loan and wait for them to deliver it to me in three years. How smart is that?)
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report last week which claimed the Baucus bill would not add to the national deficit. This was the "plain speak" version not the "political-speak" one with all the confusion - I mean - all the details, either! But this report assumes that those employers who had previously provided healthcare coverage for their employers and who would drop employee coverage in favor of the less costly non-coverage tax penalty as provided under the Baucus bill would increase their worker paychecks by an equal amount which they spent on the insurance coverage. (I'm not sure if this would be less the penalty they would have to pay!) This practice will take a nontaxable event for the employer (the health care provision) and replace it with a taxable one (employee wages). Proponents of the bill say this will produce $83 billion in government revenues. If this revenue doesn't come into the coffers, then the Baucus bill will add billions of dollars to the federal deficit in the next ten years.
So I'm asking, why would a company drop employee coverage just so it could pay more (in fines, taxes, and wages) than it did before? It does seem more likely they'd just drop the expensive insurance, pay the fine, and let the insurance part go! Sounds more logical, doesn't it?
Overall, it would be much more effective and much less expensive if politicians would just address the problems that presently exist in our current healthcare system rather than building a whole new system around those problems. It's like building a new house on a crumbling foundation. And that is exactly what the American people are trying to tell Congress - only they're not listening.
All I can say is any Democrats who supports any final bill of this type should be and will be held responsible for this healthcare mess when premiums rise, taxes increase, deficits skyrocket, and Big Government's power grab reaches farther and farther into the American's wallets and way of life.
Showing posts with label Baucus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baucus. Show all posts
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
ObamaCare Is Now BaucuSCARE...
BaucuSCARE.... I enjoy good puns, and this one would be amusing if it didn't cut into the heart of the matter. Obamacare is becoming Baucus "scare" (a.k.a. BaucusCare). A former aide of Baucus' who is now in the Health and Human Services Central Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is the one who is actually pushing this issue against Humana on behalf of Senator Baucus.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, one of my favorite Libertarians and who knows our Constitution very well, says that the US Constitution recognizes a corporation's right to free speech is the same as an individual's. Thus, corporations can speak as freely about ObamaCare or BaucuSCARE as they want. He suggests that the CMS should essentially take their gag order and rip it up because it’s absurd, and he also feels that it should be an open and shut case for Humana if CMS pursues it.
Judge Napolitano said that the taxpayers will probably end up paying for the prosecutors' portion of this frivolous lawsuit if it goes forward. Since it's such a basic Constitutional issue that is under attack, I am inclined to believe it would be worth it to spend some of my tax dollars on a case like this where once again our Constitutionally-granted individual rights can be validated in our courts and clearly establish a precedent. I would just consider it another strike against the fascist philosophy of the Obama Administration.
At last report, the government (CMS) is still using threats of legal actions against Humana and others to squelch any opposition to Senator Baucus' bill. And why? Because basically that bill is all that's keeping the Obama Administration from fundamentally changing healthcare for all Americans. But censorship isn’t coming only from the CMS office, as evidenced in a televised video of a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Baucus' bill yesterday. Rep. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona was trying to make a point during his allotted time for debate and was repeatedly interrupted by Chairman Baucus in an obvious attempt to run out Kyl's allotted time. So, it is politics as usual? Indeed!
The government has taken control of the biggest banks, the automobile industry, and healthcare is another huge slice of the economic pie it wants to control. So, I guess it is no wonder that Senator Baucus has reason to try to squelch any debate on his healthcare plan. However, the longer that the bill takes to pass, the more truth comes out and the more Moderates and Conservatives have reason to object to it. The summer town halls meetings on healthcare have ended, but the resistance must remain strong until the questions are answered and the right solutions for reform can be brought to the forefront for discussion.
What has got the Democrats such as Baucus on the defensive to the point that they won't allow any discussion from the opposition is that the Conservatives, and even Moderates, are finally (when given the chance) asking some of the questions that the people in the town halls from this summer asked. Some answers are coming out which reveal some real negatives about the proposed plans that most Americans don't like. The Democrats' reluctance to discuss these issues is obvious validity to the concerns of the people which need to be addressed before there is any vote on the proposed bills.
Determined Obamacrats are watching their poll numbers going down in most cases. They are growing fearful of losing their seats in 2010 and 2012! GOOD! And the Republican may use any "success" in this healthcare reform battle as a "tool" in their attempt to regain the Senate, and/or the House in 2010 and 2012. But they need to worry as well. At those times, the issue of people's trust of their representation will be what matters most. But what is important right now is that they are asking the hard questions that have needed to be answered all along.
We know that the Obama Administration's strategy is to overwhelm the system in their efforts to push through their agendas. And while healthcare is an extremely important issue, and they're pushing for all they're worth, they are waging wars in other areas. We can't be distracted from other important battles going on other fronts such as the preservation of our first amendment rights. We need to respond quickly and decisively, and keep the pressures on until Congress listens and represents the will of the people.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, one of my favorite Libertarians and who knows our Constitution very well, says that the US Constitution recognizes a corporation's right to free speech is the same as an individual's. Thus, corporations can speak as freely about ObamaCare or BaucuSCARE as they want. He suggests that the CMS should essentially take their gag order and rip it up because it’s absurd, and he also feels that it should be an open and shut case for Humana if CMS pursues it.
Judge Napolitano said that the taxpayers will probably end up paying for the prosecutors' portion of this frivolous lawsuit if it goes forward. Since it's such a basic Constitutional issue that is under attack, I am inclined to believe it would be worth it to spend some of my tax dollars on a case like this where once again our Constitutionally-granted individual rights can be validated in our courts and clearly establish a precedent. I would just consider it another strike against the fascist philosophy of the Obama Administration.
At last report, the government (CMS) is still using threats of legal actions against Humana and others to squelch any opposition to Senator Baucus' bill. And why? Because basically that bill is all that's keeping the Obama Administration from fundamentally changing healthcare for all Americans. But censorship isn’t coming only from the CMS office, as evidenced in a televised video of a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Baucus' bill yesterday. Rep. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona was trying to make a point during his allotted time for debate and was repeatedly interrupted by Chairman Baucus in an obvious attempt to run out Kyl's allotted time. So, it is politics as usual? Indeed!
The government has taken control of the biggest banks, the automobile industry, and healthcare is another huge slice of the economic pie it wants to control. So, I guess it is no wonder that Senator Baucus has reason to try to squelch any debate on his healthcare plan. However, the longer that the bill takes to pass, the more truth comes out and the more Moderates and Conservatives have reason to object to it. The summer town halls meetings on healthcare have ended, but the resistance must remain strong until the questions are answered and the right solutions for reform can be brought to the forefront for discussion.
What has got the Democrats such as Baucus on the defensive to the point that they won't allow any discussion from the opposition is that the Conservatives, and even Moderates, are finally (when given the chance) asking some of the questions that the people in the town halls from this summer asked. Some answers are coming out which reveal some real negatives about the proposed plans that most Americans don't like. The Democrats' reluctance to discuss these issues is obvious validity to the concerns of the people which need to be addressed before there is any vote on the proposed bills.
Determined Obamacrats are watching their poll numbers going down in most cases. They are growing fearful of losing their seats in 2010 and 2012! GOOD! And the Republican may use any "success" in this healthcare reform battle as a "tool" in their attempt to regain the Senate, and/or the House in 2010 and 2012. But they need to worry as well. At those times, the issue of people's trust of their representation will be what matters most. But what is important right now is that they are asking the hard questions that have needed to be answered all along.
We know that the Obama Administration's strategy is to overwhelm the system in their efforts to push through their agendas. And while healthcare is an extremely important issue, and they're pushing for all they're worth, they are waging wars in other areas. We can't be distracted from other important battles going on other fronts such as the preservation of our first amendment rights. We need to respond quickly and decisively, and keep the pressures on until Congress listens and represents the will of the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
