star health insurance
Saturday night, the U.S. House took us one step closer to providing Americans choice, quality and affordability in health care. It has been a contentious six months. But the House, in spite of the misinformation being spread by the opposition and the emotional and explosive August town halls, successfully passed the historic health care legislation.
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver voted with the majority in passing the Affordable Health Care for America Act. I know I speak for many Missourians when I say thank you to Cleaver for supporting real health care reform.
Cleaver understands that if the insurance companies win, we lose. His vote says loud and clear that he’s on our side. So I want to say back to him — loud and clear — thank you.
Mindy Brissey
Kansas City
Rep. Ike Skelton again has proved he is the right person to represent us by voting against the House health care bill. Few of us have read the 2,000 pages of the House health care bill or the rest of the legions of legislative proposals flooding Congress.
Ike has, and he has exercised an honest independence of judgment reflecting the interests and philosophy of his constituents and his own deep commitment to and understanding of the long-term needs of this country.
His courage in opposing the extreme pressures of his party to ram the Obama administration’s keystone project through Congress irrefutably proves that Skelton is not House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s pal or pawn, but rather is an independent voice for Missouri and America.
We in the 4th District are privileged to have him representing us in Congress. If only the rest of America were so lucky.
Hibberd V.B. Kline III
Centerview, Mo.
I was disappointed that Congressman Ike Skelton voted “no” on the health care reform bill and was against a government option.
For several days now, and even since the bill passed, an ad has been aired urging phone calls to be made to Rep. Skelton urging him to vote “no.”
Instead of spending millions on ads, perhaps it would be beneficial for the health insurance companies and the health care industry to seriously collaborate to decrease the cost of health care for individuals. Having seen my health insurance increase at a rate of 25 percent per year with unreasonable deductibles, I gladly welcome a government option. Would this not be a stimulus to the economy?
Paula Kolster
Lexington, Mo.
Posted by letters editor on November 09, 2009 at 10:30 PM | Permalink
Comments
Affordable for who is the question. Probably the SAME group that always gets a free handout at our expense. Our premiums will increase from $280 a month to over $1200 a month for less coverage and more likely than not less than qualified physicians that enjoy government handouts.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | Nov 11, 2009 8:38:31 AM
Bohemian I have the bill up online but can't find the pages! What Title or subtitle in the bill is it in? Thanks!
Posted by: GHMan | Nov 10, 2009 10:40:08 PM
With it looking like this bill will pass everyone needs to know that if you go online you can compare health insurance quotes. Doing this will save you a lot of money. Do it each year to make sure you are getting the best price.
Posted by: g3 | Nov 10, 2009 10:14:10 PM
Newflash!!!!! The Grape Koolaid that you liberals have been drinking: Not Covered by the Public Option!!
You guys are lost in the vast Obama wilderness. All I can remember from you when Bush was in office was what "sheep" the republicans were. Wow. I can't believe you have bought into this fiscal insanity.
I ran across this quote today. An oldie but a good one
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul. --George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Posted by: mike d | Nov 10, 2009 8:58:29 PM
Pubster: It’s amazing! I stared at my monitor and chanted “stupidity" three times and your post suddenly appeared, just like the Candyman (to be fair, I was reading one of Jim's arguments at the time, I didn't mean to search out ignorance).
Glad you could break away from insulting Jews to provide the link. What it has to do with the topic at hand is questionable, much like many of your posts.
I guess its part of the health care debate kind of like using an intern as a humidor would be.
Thanks for always being the silly smurf! We need the humor.
For another example of why Pub is another of the biggest liars since that fat guy swore “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” just search back in Unfettered a couple of days to this link: http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2009/11/national-debt-issue.html
Pub may never get his clown make-up washed off from that one!
Posted by: Smarter Than You | Nov 10, 2009 7:15:39 PM
So, business as usual. Dumber Than A Backhoe is yammering about things she'll never understand.
Since this thread is still live, enjoy, people.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/966677.html?pageNum=5&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container
The second most senior member of the Republican National Committee. Nineteen used condoms. All it lacks is flying bears, with spears.
Posted by: Pub 17 | Nov 10, 2009 6:41:32 PM
What did Jim ignore? That it took ten years of revenue to provide six years of coverage to give the appearance of fiscal efficacy! Oh sure, Jim wants to point out that the tax increase isn't really on anyone he approves of (and ignores what else that money could be used for and is arguing that a tax increase is the best thing to do in the current economic environment). So, Jim, where is that $1.2 trillion going?
Jim asserts that the pool expansion will offset the must carry/no limits portions of the bill without any documentation. In fact, Jim likes to assert a lot of things that have later been proven inaccurate. How's that abortion argument working out for you right about now, Jimmers?
It's as if he can't comprehend that there is a record deficit in Obama's first year. He obviously can’t comprehend any of the financial analysis that says we must address the deficit for long term financial health (talk about a health priority).
But instead of Jim quoting his imaginary friend, let’s quote one of the Democrats in the Senate: “Mr. Warner (Sen. Mark Warner, D, VA) also said Tuesday that he, along with some Republicans and fellow Democrats in Congress, think the economy will never fully recover from the recession unless the roughly $1.4 trillion federal deficit is brought under control.”
On the plus side, Obama’s leadership, with a stacked deck, could only get the House bill passed by four votes and with a ban on abortion funding included. The Senate won’t pass the public option as proposed by the house. Mid-terms are approaching and the Party in Power is running scared. It’s as if the pollsters are actually a death panel reviewing Democratic chances in the mid-terms if Obama/Pelosi get their way.
Posted by: Smarter Than You | Nov 10, 2009 6:17:32 PM
Jim ought to know, he's doing Barney Frank.
Posted by: kcstar_is_one_sided | Nov 10, 2009 4:21:21 PM
I don't get the reference, KC Star. Can you explain it to me?
Posted by: Jim | Nov 10, 2009 5:40:26 PM
"One point two TRILLION dollars to cover, if we were to believe Jim, “Only a small percentage of Americans.” "
It's stunning that you can be this dishonest or ignorant (probably both). The bill is paid for, first of all, and cuts the deficit by $104 billion. The GOP alternative, which covers essentially no one and changes essentially nothing, doesn't even come close to that much savings.
The money isn't used to just institute the public option. But that fact is just too inconvenient for your pathetic and dishonest narrative, so you just skip it.
"Then there is that nasty must cover inclusion which will drive up the rates for the rest of us."
Uh, expanding the pool will reduce premiums. I'm not surprised that you don't understsand basic economics, though. The CBO (again, your favorite source which you use all the time) has said the same thing.
"The rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would note, is this relies on a massive tax increase and reductions in Medicare spending. "
The tax is 5% on .3% of the top 1% of income earners. That's not even enough to reverse Bush's budget-busting tax cuts (funny how you were all fine with huge deficits when they came from tax cuts).
This is on adjusted gross income. That means if, after all the deductions, your income still hits above $500,000 as an individual or $1 million as a family, you are subject to the tax.
For Medicare, all that's being proposed is an end to the GOP effort to kill medicare by privatizing it (also known as Part D). Medicare Advantage is private insurance, it's not Medicare. Those private insurers currently charge the government 14% more than traditional Medicare costs to do the same thing. Also, the government is not allowed to negotiate drug prices under the GOP's law, which artificially raises costs.
This, by the way, is another case of GOP selective outrage about the deficit. Medicare Part D ended up costing almost a trillion dollars, way more than we were told it would. When a Medicare actuary tried to tell the public that at the time, he was fired by the Bush Administration. Conservatives love big deficits if we get them by cutting taxes on millioniares or privatizing government programs.
This is why they're howling about a bill that reduces the deficit. They love deficits too much to let them go. After spending eight long years giving us huge deficits, they just can't let them go.
I notice (for like the 500th time) that Dumber wasn't able to show us where the "death panels" are, or where the "government takeover" of health care is. Here's a hint: the reason he can't is because he's lying about it. That's why when he's challenged on it, he shifts the conversation to other topics.
Posted by: Jim | Nov 10, 2009 5:39:57 PM
Jim ought to know, he's doing Barney Frank.
Posted by: kcstar_is_one_sided | Nov 10, 2009 4:21:21 PM
failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
- - - - - - - - - - “If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
- - - - - - - - - -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
Posted by: Bohemian | Nov 10, 2009 4:11:07 PM
Chalco is probably here illegaly and sounds like he rsent having to pay for services rendered. Doctors are not like lawyers, doctors actually provide a valuable service called health care. There is no tort reform in this bill. I just can't wait to lose our insurance and then be without and not in compliance with the Fuhrer's mandate. I have anotehr kind of insurance policy called the US Constitution, I wil refuse to complay with communist, socialist, marxist and fascist laws. I dare Federal goons to come and do something about it, Irs agents, you better not be a rookies and thoroughly read your BRM manual before stepping on provate property you deadbeat coward commies.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | Nov 10, 2009 3:47:30 PM
Not since Scheherazade has there been such magical tales told as Jim is offering here.
One point two TRILLION dollars to cover, if we were to believe Jim, “Only a small percentage of Americans.” For $1.2 trillion. Talk about overpaying; and that’s just for “the option” without all these people utilizing the public option (again according to Jim).
Then there is that nasty must cover inclusion which will drive up the rates for the rest of us. Thanks, Democrats!
Of course Jim, ever the icon of fiscal responsibility, will tell you the House Bill does not add to the deficit and offers a ten year CBO analysis. The rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would note, is this relies on a massive tax increase and reductions in Medicare spending. More importantly, it relies on ten years of revenue collection to pay for six years of service. Then the ultimate entitlement ARM comes due. Medicare or Social Security would be good empirical examples of long term entitlement fiscal success.
It’s kind of like the lie Jim’s been telling that abortion would never ever be covered under any government program:
“On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” (HR3962) the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan.
That why:
“Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from subsidizing abortions.” (11/9/09)
Posted by: Smarter Than You | Nov 10, 2009 3:45:37 PM
Jim unless you are some prodigy or you used your super duper decoder ring, I doubt you can understand the grotesque legalese of mumbo jumbo in this asinine bill.
All they need to do is work with insurance companies on pre-existing and reform tort. Then realize that you can not force somone to take advantage of health care. If there are peopl without, then simply mandate these people enroll in Medicaid and forc Medicaid to accept them. Leave the 85% of us alone that are perfectly fine with what we have. I guarantee you when it's all said and done, we will se the similar lack of accountability, fraud and lack of responsibility as proven by the 2007 Missouri State Auditor's findings pertaining to the corrupt DCSE and their bogus power and revenue grab. People still claim that is not true (although it's documented and a proven fact). I wonder which union construction companies will gt the cntracts to expand the new green debtors prisons, I hope they have HD and flat screens.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | Nov 10, 2009 3:13:16 PM
Insurance companies are big cheaters, when we have serious atention or serios illnes, then we go to hospitals and get big bills to pay, then they avoid payments, throuwing the bill like a hot potato .
I gladly welcome a government option.
Ed. Chalco
NY ny
Posted by: Edgar Chalco | Nov 10, 2009 1:39:29 PM
Another comedy routine from Mark Robertson.
"It is insanity that would wreck small business and drastically change our overall way of life in disastrous ways."
85% of small businesses are exempt from the House legislation and are under no mandates to provide coverage. The ones that are mandated may be eligible for subsidies to help them purchase it.
"It would destroy private health care insurance because the government option would run those companies out of business..."
But aren't you the one that said the public option would be a miserable failure because it will "ration" care and won't be able to provide the quality of the private insurers? Now you're saying people will flock to that inferior system and drive the insurance industry out of business. Huh.
Only a small percentage of Americans will even be eligible for the public option. And even those people, the currently uninsured, will be able to go shopping and choose among several private insureres and one public option. They can choose whatever plan they want. The CBO's conservative estimate is only about 6 million people will choose the public option. And those that do will be paying premiums, it's not free. Perhaps you can explain how that will "destroy" all the other insurance providers?
"If these Marxists really wanted more competition in the health insurance business, they would allow for the purchase of health insurance across state lines. "
This again. You and your cohorts simply want big insurance companies to be able to stay in the least regulated states (the federal government does not regulate the insurance industry) and cherry pick other, more regulated states' healthiest citizens while denying coverage to everyone else. That not only destroys the current risk pools in every state, but it does nothing to reduce costs for those who actually need insurance. Your oversimplification leaves out a lot of consequences that would be devastating to Americans, but wonderful for insurance companies. As you say, it's not that complicated.
"By the way the passage of the Stupak amendment is virtually worthless because it is very unlikely it survives conference committee, besides, this sham would still be extremely anti-life."
The Stupak Amendment is the sham. Abortion is covered by some private insurers. If you have a problem with that, take your business elsewhere. It's not covered under the public option. Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country. You talk a lot about government bureaucrats getting between patients and doctors and how bad that is. Then you turn around and say that, in this case, government bureaucrats should get in between patients and doctors. Which is it? Your hypocrisy isn't surprising, but the brazenness of it is.
"Yes, there is the equivalent of death panels in this piece of c--p. Sarah Palin right again."
There is? Then why has it been impossible for months now for you, Zeno, Dumber, Kee, KC Star, Kate and others to actually show us the language that establishes these "death panels"? If this is in the bill, why can't any of you actually show us where? Please be specific and show us the citation and the language that sets up these "death panels." Otherwise, you should stop lying and focus on what's actually in the bill.
"Plus, one could go to jail for 5 years if they don't pay the fine for not obtaining bureaucrat approved health care."
Really? I've read the bill, and I can't find that in there, either. Care to show me specifically what language says you can go to jail for not buying health insurance? Or are you just going to run and hide like you usually do when called on your crap?
Posted by: Jim | Nov 10, 2009 10:30:38 AM
As the Wall Street Journal points out,(11-2-09)Pelosi's supposed health care bill "may well be the worst piece of post New Deal legislation ever introduced."
It is insanity that would wreck small business and drastically change our overall way of life in disastrous ways. It would destroy private health care insurance because the government option would run those companies out of business, which is actually the idea of the Obama, Pelosi, Reid sham.
If these Marxists really wanted more competition in the health insurance business, they would allow for the purchase of health insurance across state lines. It's really not that complicated, but it gets in the way of the Dem's overall goal of gaining more power and control over our lives.
By the way the passage of the Stupak amendment is virtually worthless because it is very unlikely it survives conference committee, besides, this sham would still be extremely anti-life. Yes, there is the equivalent of death panels in this piece of c--p. Sarah Palin right again.
Plus, one could go to jail for 5 years if they don't pay the fine for not obtaining bureaucrat approved health care.
Anyone who supports this monstrosity is at the very least, extremely ignorant.
Thankyou.
Mark Robertson
Independence
Posted by: Mark Robertson | Nov 10, 2009 10:11:59 AM
Cleaver is simply another career crook/reverand that plays the race card and keeps his constituents dependent on government handouts. He is a deadbeat.
Surely he will be oneof the first to take advantage of the $1200 a month garbage health plan. We are looking forward to the $5400 out of pocket which we can not afford but face jail if we do not pay it. (Debtors prisons again). Cleaver like most Democrat s and the deadbeat Clown In Charge haas not read the bill.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | Nov 10, 2009 8:40:57 AM
kcstar is one sided I think your giving the value of the dollar credit when you say about 8 years! We will collapse before Obama see's another election.
Cleaver's vote says loud and clear that he’s on our side. Mindy Brissey
Mindy's delusionary if she believes Cleaver gives a damn about anyone but himself and his party.
Posted by: GHMan | Nov 10, 2009 8:22:02 AM
I still am scratching m head, since when does the IRS have anything to do with health care? According to the bill, my family be forced to pay more than 3 times the current premium we enjoy under my employer of whom will have no choice but to drop group coverage when rates skyrocket.
It will be interesting to see whre the 10's of thousands of jobs that will be lost in the health care and insurance industry will find employmnt. MAybe they can all become road workers or green worker (whatever that is).
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | Nov 10, 2009 8:07:47 AM
Skelton is Nancy Pelosi's toadie. Rest assured he got her permission to vote against government ran health care, otherwise he would have fallen in line and voted with the Beaver Cleaver.
Skelton was quick to draft a resolution against the surge that saved our guy's lives in Iraq, at San Fran Nan Gran's direction. Hell he did not even bat an eye before the thing was on the floor.
This guy used to have some honor and worked to support a strong defense. He has now just turned into an old party hack. Time to go Ike.
Posted by: Kee | Nov 10, 2009 7:35:39 AM
Everyone wants everybody to be covered. The issue here is the money. The whole system is going to collapse under the weight of Social Security and Medicare. Now we add on health care? You idiots have just signed a death sentence. Those very people you think you are helping are going to be hurt the most when the system collapses. It's only about 8 years away also.
Posted by: kcstar_is_one_sided | Nov 9, 2009 11:26:39 PM
Saturday night, the U.S. House took us one step closer to providing Americans choice, quality and affordability in health care. It has been a contentious six months. But the House, in spite of the misinformation being spread by the opposition and the emotional and explosive August town halls, successfully passed the historic health care legislation.
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver voted with the majority in passing the Affordable Health Care for America Act. I know I speak for many Missourians when I say thank you to Cleaver for supporting real health care reform.
Cleaver understands that if the insurance companies win, we lose. His vote says loud and clear that he’s on our side. So I want to say back to him — loud and clear — thank you.
Mindy Brissey
Kansas City
Rep. Ike Skelton again has proved he is the right person to represent us by voting against the House health care bill. Few of us have read the 2,000 pages of the House health care bill or the rest of the legions of legislative proposals flooding Congress.
Ike has, and he has exercised an honest independence of judgment reflecting the interests and philosophy of his constituents and his own deep commitment to and understanding of the long-term needs of this country.
His courage in opposing the extreme pressures of his party to ram the Obama administration’s keystone project through Congress irrefutably proves that Skelton is not House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s pal or pawn, but rather is an independent voice for Missouri and America.
We in the 4th District are privileged to have him representing us in Congress. If only the rest of America were so lucky.
Hibberd V.B. Kline III
Centerview, Mo.
I was disappointed that Congressman Ike Skelton voted “no” on the health care reform bill and was against a government option.
For several days now, and even since the bill passed, an ad has been aired urging phone calls to be made to Rep. Skelton urging him to vote “no.”
Instead of spending millions on ads, perhaps it would be beneficial for the health insurance companies and the health care industry to seriously collaborate to decrease the cost of health care for individuals. Having seen my health insurance increase at a rate of 25 percent per year with unreasonable deductibles, I gladly welcome a government option. Would this not be a stimulus to the economy?
Paula Kolster
Lexington, Mo.
Posted by letters editor on November 09, 2009 at 10:30 PM | Permalink
Comments
Affordable for who is the question. Probably the SAME group that always gets a free handout at our expense. Our premiums will increase from $280 a month to over $1200 a month for less coverage and more likely than not less than qualified physicians that enjoy government handouts.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | Nov 11, 2009 8:38:31 AM
Bohemian I have the bill up online but can't find the pages! What Title or subtitle in the bill is it in? Thanks!
Posted by: GHMan | Nov 10, 2009 10:40:08 PM
With it looking like this bill will pass everyone needs to know that if you go online you can compare health insurance quotes. Doing this will save you a lot of money. Do it each year to make sure you are getting the best price.
Posted by: g3 | Nov 10, 2009 10:14:10 PM
Newflash!!!!! The Grape Koolaid that you liberals have been drinking: Not Covered by the Public Option!!
You guys are lost in the vast Obama wilderness. All I can remember from you when Bush was in office was what "sheep" the republicans were. Wow. I can't believe you have bought into this fiscal insanity.
I ran across this quote today. An oldie but a good one
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul. --George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Posted by: mike d | Nov 10, 2009 8:58:29 PM
Pubster: It’s amazing! I stared at my monitor and chanted “stupidity" three times and your post suddenly appeared, just like the Candyman (to be fair, I was reading one of Jim's arguments at the time, I didn't mean to search out ignorance).
Glad you could break away from insulting Jews to provide the link. What it has to do with the topic at hand is questionable, much like many of your posts.
I guess its part of the health care debate kind of like using an intern as a humidor would be.
Thanks for always being the silly smurf! We need the humor.
For another example of why Pub is another of the biggest liars since that fat guy swore “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” just search back in Unfettered a couple of days to this link: http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2009/11/national-debt-issue.html
Pub may never get his clown make-up washed off from that one!
Posted by: Smarter Than You | Nov 10, 2009 7:15:39 PM
So, business as usual. Dumber Than A Backhoe is yammering about things she'll never understand.
Since this thread is still live, enjoy, people.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/966677.html?pageNum=5&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container
The second most senior member of the Republican National Committee. Nineteen used condoms. All it lacks is flying bears, with spears.
Posted by: Pub 17 | Nov 10, 2009 6:41:32 PM
What did Jim ignore? That it took ten years of revenue to provide six years of coverage to give the appearance of fiscal efficacy! Oh sure, Jim wants to point out that the tax increase isn't really on anyone he approves of (and ignores what else that money could be used for and is arguing that a tax increase is the best thing to do in the current economic environment). So, Jim, where is that $1.2 trillion going?
Jim asserts that the pool expansion will offset the must carry/no limits portions of the bill without any documentation. In fact, Jim likes to assert a lot of things that have later been proven inaccurate. How's that abortion argument working out for you right about now, Jimmers?
It's as if he can't comprehend that there is a record deficit in Obama's first year. He obviously can’t comprehend any of the financial analysis that says we must address the deficit for long term financial health (talk about a health priority).
But instead of Jim quoting his imaginary friend, let’s quote one of the Democrats in the Senate: “Mr. Warner (Sen. Mark Warner, D, VA) also said Tuesday that he, along with some Republicans and fellow Democrats in Congress, think the economy will never fully recover from the recession unless the roughly $1.4 trillion federal deficit is brought under control.”
On the plus side, Obama’s leadership, with a stacked deck, could only get the House bill passed by four votes and with a ban on abortion funding included. The Senate won’t pass the public option as proposed by the house. Mid-terms are approaching and the Party in Power is running scared. It’s as if the pollsters are actually a death panel reviewing Democratic chances in the mid-terms if Obama/Pelosi get their way.
Posted by: Smarter Than You | Nov 10, 2009 6:17:32 PM
Jim ought to know, he's doing Barney Frank.
Posted by: kcstar_is_one_sided | Nov 10, 2009 4:21:21 PM
I don't get the reference, KC Star. Can you explain it to me?
Posted by: Jim | Nov 10, 2009 5:40:26 PM
"One point two TRILLION dollars to cover, if we were to believe Jim, “Only a small percentage of Americans.” "
It's stunning that you can be this dishonest or ignorant (probably both). The bill is paid for, first of all, and cuts the deficit by $104 billion. The GOP alternative, which covers essentially no one and changes essentially nothing, doesn't even come close to that much savings.
The money isn't used to just institute the public option. But that fact is just too inconvenient for your pathetic and dishonest narrative, so you just skip it.
"Then there is that nasty must cover inclusion which will drive up the rates for the rest of us."
Uh, expanding the pool will reduce premiums. I'm not surprised that you don't understsand basic economics, though. The CBO (again, your favorite source which you use all the time) has said the same thing.
"The rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would note, is this relies on a massive tax increase and reductions in Medicare spending. "
The tax is 5% on .3% of the top 1% of income earners. That's not even enough to reverse Bush's budget-busting tax cuts (funny how you were all fine with huge deficits when they came from tax cuts).
This is on adjusted gross income. That means if, after all the deductions, your income still hits above $500,000 as an individual or $1 million as a family, you are subject to the tax.
For Medicare, all that's being proposed is an end to the GOP effort to kill medicare by privatizing it (also known as Part D). Medicare Advantage is private insurance, it's not Medicare. Those private insurers currently charge the government 14% more than traditional Medicare costs to do the same thing. Also, the government is not allowed to negotiate drug prices under the GOP's law, which artificially raises costs.
This, by the way, is another case of GOP selective outrage about the deficit. Medicare Part D ended up costing almost a trillion dollars, way more than we were told it would. When a Medicare actuary tried to tell the public that at the time, he was fired by the Bush Administration. Conservatives love big deficits if we get them by cutting taxes on millioniares or privatizing government programs.
This is why they're howling about a bill that reduces the deficit. They love deficits too much to let them go. After spending eight long years giving us huge deficits, they just can't let them go.
I notice (for like the 500th time) that Dumber wasn't able to show us where the "death panels" are, or where the "government takeover" of health care is. Here's a hint: the reason he can't is because he's lying about it. That's why when he's challenged on it, he shifts the conversation to other topics.
Posted by: Jim | Nov 10, 2009 5:39:57 PM
Jim ought to know, he's doing Barney Frank.
Posted by: kcstar_is_one_sided | Nov 10, 2009 4:21:21 PM
failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
- - - - - - - - - - “If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
- - - - - - - - - -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
Posted by: Bohemian | Nov 10, 2009 4:11:07 PM
Chalco is probably here illegaly and sounds like he rsent having to pay for services rendered. Doctors are not like lawyers, doctors actually provide a valuable service called health care. There is no tort reform in this bill. I just can't wait to lose our insurance and then be without and not in compliance with the Fuhrer's mandate. I have anotehr kind of insurance policy called the US Constitution, I wil refuse to complay with communist, socialist, marxist and fascist laws. I dare Federal goons to come and do something about it, Irs agents, you better not be a rookies and thoroughly read your BRM manual before stepping on provate property you deadbeat coward commies.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | Nov 10, 2009 3:47:30 PM
Not since Scheherazade has there been such magical tales told as Jim is offering here.
One point two TRILLION dollars to cover, if we were to believe Jim, “Only a small percentage of Americans.” For $1.2 trillion. Talk about overpaying; and that’s just for “the option” without all these people utilizing the public option (again according to Jim).
Then there is that nasty must cover inclusion which will drive up the rates for the rest of us. Thanks, Democrats!
Of course Jim, ever the icon of fiscal responsibility, will tell you the House Bill does not add to the deficit and offers a ten year CBO analysis. The rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would note, is this relies on a massive tax increase and reductions in Medicare spending. More importantly, it relies on ten years of revenue collection to pay for six years of service. Then the ultimate entitlement ARM comes due. Medicare or Social Security would be good empirical examples of long term entitlement fiscal success.
It’s kind of like the lie Jim’s been telling that abortion would never ever be covered under any government program:
“On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” (HR3962) the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan.
That why:
“Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from subsidizing abortions.” (11/9/09)
Posted by: Smarter Than You | Nov 10, 2009 3:45:37 PM
Jim unless you are some prodigy or you used your super duper decoder ring, I doubt you can understand the grotesque legalese of mumbo jumbo in this asinine bill.
All they need to do is work with insurance companies on pre-existing and reform tort. Then realize that you can not force somone to take advantage of health care. If there are peopl without, then simply mandate these people enroll in Medicaid and forc Medicaid to accept them. Leave the 85% of us alone that are perfectly fine with what we have. I guarantee you when it's all said and done, we will se the similar lack of accountability, fraud and lack of responsibility as proven by the 2007 Missouri State Auditor's findings pertaining to the corrupt DCSE and their bogus power and revenue grab. People still claim that is not true (although it's documented and a proven fact). I wonder which union construction companies will gt the cntracts to expand the new green debtors prisons, I hope they have HD and flat screens.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | Nov 10, 2009 3:13:16 PM
Insurance companies are big cheaters, when we have serious atention or serios illnes, then we go to hospitals and get big bills to pay, then they avoid payments, throuwing the bill like a hot potato .
I gladly welcome a government option.
Ed. Chalco
NY ny
Posted by: Edgar Chalco | Nov 10, 2009 1:39:29 PM
Another comedy routine from Mark Robertson.
"It is insanity that would wreck small business and drastically change our overall way of life in disastrous ways."
85% of small businesses are exempt from the House legislation and are under no mandates to provide coverage. The ones that are mandated may be eligible for subsidies to help them purchase it.
"It would destroy private health care insurance because the government option would run those companies out of business..."
But aren't you the one that said the public option would be a miserable failure because it will "ration" care and won't be able to provide the quality of the private insurers? Now you're saying people will flock to that inferior system and drive the insurance industry out of business. Huh.
Only a small percentage of Americans will even be eligible for the public option. And even those people, the currently uninsured, will be able to go shopping and choose among several private insureres and one public option. They can choose whatever plan they want. The CBO's conservative estimate is only about 6 million people will choose the public option. And those that do will be paying premiums, it's not free. Perhaps you can explain how that will "destroy" all the other insurance providers?
"If these Marxists really wanted more competition in the health insurance business, they would allow for the purchase of health insurance across state lines. "
This again. You and your cohorts simply want big insurance companies to be able to stay in the least regulated states (the federal government does not regulate the insurance industry) and cherry pick other, more regulated states' healthiest citizens while denying coverage to everyone else. That not only destroys the current risk pools in every state, but it does nothing to reduce costs for those who actually need insurance. Your oversimplification leaves out a lot of consequences that would be devastating to Americans, but wonderful for insurance companies. As you say, it's not that complicated.
"By the way the passage of the Stupak amendment is virtually worthless because it is very unlikely it survives conference committee, besides, this sham would still be extremely anti-life."
The Stupak Amendment is the sham. Abortion is covered by some private insurers. If you have a problem with that, take your business elsewhere. It's not covered under the public option. Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country. You talk a lot about government bureaucrats getting between patients and doctors and how bad that is. Then you turn around and say that, in this case, government bureaucrats should get in between patients and doctors. Which is it? Your hypocrisy isn't surprising, but the brazenness of it is.
"Yes, there is the equivalent of death panels in this piece of c--p. Sarah Palin right again."
There is? Then why has it been impossible for months now for you, Zeno, Dumber, Kee, KC Star, Kate and others to actually show us the language that establishes these "death panels"? If this is in the bill, why can't any of you actually show us where? Please be specific and show us the citation and the language that sets up these "death panels." Otherwise, you should stop lying and focus on what's actually in the bill.
"Plus, one could go to jail for 5 years if they don't pay the fine for not obtaining bureaucrat approved health care."
Really? I've read the bill, and I can't find that in there, either. Care to show me specifically what language says you can go to jail for not buying health insurance? Or are you just going to run and hide like you usually do when called on your crap?
Posted by: Jim | Nov 10, 2009 10:30:38 AM
As the Wall Street Journal points out,(11-2-09)Pelosi's supposed health care bill "may well be the worst piece of post New Deal legislation ever introduced."
It is insanity that would wreck small business and drastically change our overall way of life in disastrous ways. It would destroy private health care insurance because the government option would run those companies out of business, which is actually the idea of the Obama, Pelosi, Reid sham.
If these Marxists really wanted more competition in the health insurance business, they would allow for the purchase of health insurance across state lines. It's really not that complicated, but it gets in the way of the Dem's overall goal of gaining more power and control over our lives.
By the way the passage of the Stupak amendment is virtually worthless because it is very unlikely it survives conference committee, besides, this sham would still be extremely anti-life. Yes, there is the equivalent of death panels in this piece of c--p. Sarah Palin right again.
Plus, one could go to jail for 5 years if they don't pay the fine for not obtaining bureaucrat approved health care.
Anyone who supports this monstrosity is at the very least, extremely ignorant.
Thankyou.
Mark Robertson
Independence
Posted by: Mark Robertson | Nov 10, 2009 10:11:59 AM
Cleaver is simply another career crook/reverand that plays the race card and keeps his constituents dependent on government handouts. He is a deadbeat.
Surely he will be oneof the first to take advantage of the $1200 a month garbage health plan. We are looking forward to the $5400 out of pocket which we can not afford but face jail if we do not pay it. (Debtors prisons again). Cleaver like most Democrat s and the deadbeat Clown In Charge haas not read the bill.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | Nov 10, 2009 8:40:57 AM
kcstar is one sided I think your giving the value of the dollar credit when you say about 8 years! We will collapse before Obama see's another election.
Cleaver's vote says loud and clear that he’s on our side. Mindy Brissey
Mindy's delusionary if she believes Cleaver gives a damn about anyone but himself and his party.
Posted by: GHMan | Nov 10, 2009 8:22:02 AM
I still am scratching m head, since when does the IRS have anything to do with health care? According to the bill, my family be forced to pay more than 3 times the current premium we enjoy under my employer of whom will have no choice but to drop group coverage when rates skyrocket.
It will be interesting to see whre the 10's of thousands of jobs that will be lost in the health care and insurance industry will find employmnt. MAybe they can all become road workers or green worker (whatever that is).
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | Nov 10, 2009 8:07:47 AM
Skelton is Nancy Pelosi's toadie. Rest assured he got her permission to vote against government ran health care, otherwise he would have fallen in line and voted with the Beaver Cleaver.
Skelton was quick to draft a resolution against the surge that saved our guy's lives in Iraq, at San Fran Nan Gran's direction. Hell he did not even bat an eye before the thing was on the floor.
This guy used to have some honor and worked to support a strong defense. He has now just turned into an old party hack. Time to go Ike.
Posted by: Kee | Nov 10, 2009 7:35:39 AM
Everyone wants everybody to be covered. The issue here is the money. The whole system is going to collapse under the weight of Social Security and Medicare. Now we add on health care? You idiots have just signed a death sentence. Those very people you think you are helping are going to be hurt the most when the system collapses. It's only about 8 years away also.
Posted by: kcstar_is_one_sided | Nov 9, 2009 11:26:39 PM
