the new health bill?

[Pooter]

Just food for thought (pun intended for the current off-topic topic), under ObamaCare, the government can un-enroll an individual from their current employer-provided plan if they so choose.. They can also un-enroll an entire company from their current plan if they want.  AND, they can ENROLL you into one of the Health Exchange plans of their choice.

So, this hogwash about being able to keep your plan if you like only holds water IF the all-powerfull, all-knowing federal government deems you're worthy of you're current plan.

How's that for power to the people?

Btw, anyone know the "fee" or "fine" they assess for not having insurance?  My bet is that a lot of people will opt to NOT buy insurance and pay the fine because it will be cheaper in the long run to do that..  but, it will depend on what the "fee" or "fine" is for non-compliance.

Brian

[saralynn143]

Has anyone heard how the suit filed by the various state-level attorneys general is progressing?

Sara

[sgerrard]

Perhaps we should move it to a "serious" place - rather than leave it in the community section 

Jan, I think you will find this is one of the rare threads where the mods are more comfortable when it is off topic. 

Steve

[Kaybo]

That is a good one, Steve - good point!!   

K   

[leapyrtwins]

Has anyone heard how the suit filed by the various state-level attorneys general is progressing?

Sara

Good question, Sara.  I was wondering this myself.  Anyone have any news?

And Pooter, I was wondering about the "un-enrollment" idea.  Doesn't sound too good.

All I can say about the rest of this thread is it's definitely taking a turn for the worst - actually make that many turns for the worst.

Jan

[Pooter]

The latest I've heard about the attorneys general suit is that 5 more states have joined the suit bringing the total to 18.  I've heard also that they've planned to keep it as simple as possible to make the path through the courts as swift as possible. No matter what happens in the first levels of this, I expect it will be appealed by whatever side loses all the way to the Supreme Court. The prevailing thought is that the Court would narrowly overturn the law on Constitutional grounds. That could take a long time to get that far.

I haven't heard any news on the progress of the suit in the first round of the suit, though.

Brian

[saralynn143]

Keep it simple. What a concept. Too bad congress did not subscribe to that idea writing the health care bill.

Sara

[grega]

Jan said:  "Okay, I give up. Apparently this is just one of those threads where no one wants to stick to the topic at hand."

Please don't give up .... seems there are alternating pages .... #17 was off-topic .... #18 is on-topic .... so you're still in luck, depending on when Kay finds Old Bay in her local Walmart.

(Thank you mods!)

[Jim Scott]

Btw, anyone know the "fee" or "fine" they assess for not having insurance?  My bet is that a lot of people will opt to NOT buy insurance and pay the fine because it will be cheaper in the long run to do that..  but, it will depend on what the "fee" or "fine" is for non-compliance.

Brian ~

From the federal Joint Committee on Taxation report released earlier this week:

Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage in 2016 are subject to a penalty equal to the greater of: (1) 2.5 percent of household income in excess of the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year over the threshold amount of income required for income tax return filing for that taxpayer under section 6012(a)(1);67 or (2) $695 per uninsured adult in the household. The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee for an adult. The total household penalty may not exceed 300 percent of the per adult penalty ($2,085). The total annual household payment may not exceed the national average annual premium for bronze level health plan offered through the Exchange that year for the household size…

The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the (tax) 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.

If this is completely accurate, it means that the IRS really has no authority to enforce the fine and not carrying medical insurance carries no civil or criminal penalty.  Oh, and this doesn't take effect until 2016....another 6 years. 

It's a 'Catch-22' situation.  If you don't elect to carry (and pay for) medical insurance there is essentially no penalty.  That's fine - except - that many Americans will simply decide to save the money and not purchase medical insurance because the law will mandate that health insurers must accept anyone with a pre-existing medical condition.  So, I can see millions of people not buying medical insurance coverage until they come down with something or are injured.  Then they'll buy health insurance...and the insurance company will have no recourse but to accept the person.  Nice.

This will mean that those of us that chose to carry health insurance will be paying much higher premiums to help the insurance companies offset their increased cost of insuring those who have put nothing into the insurance system but immediately withdraw benefits on applying for a policy that they cannot legally be denied.  I believe that this will quickly make health insurance unaffordable and the government bureaucracy will then decree that insurance companies cannot charge over a certain amount.  This will be touted as being 'fair'.  That will make selling health insurance an untenable proposition (zero profit) and the private insurance companies will simply cease to exist.  The government will then be 'forced' to replace them and we'll have a 'single payer' system, just as many have always wanted. Then you'll probably see the law amended to make 'non-compliance' punishable in some form, probably civil and enforced by the feared IRS. 

I've stated my views on previous posts and won't belabor the points already raised but this is going to be a whale of a mess and I believe many will be hurt by this new law, which was unnecessarily sweeping and carries far too many mandates and restrictions that are only going to be exacerbated by a smothering bureaucracy instituted to implement the near-unfathomable law.  For those now carrying medical insurance, look for your premiums to be raised very soon as the insurance companies prepare for the onslaught of the uninsured that they'll be forced to cover, no matter what. 

This misguided concept of using the force of government to make everyone pay more and very likely receive less in medical benefits in order to cover the 15% of Americans that do not carry medical insurance (including illegal aliens and those who opt not to be insured by their own choice) will undoubtedly be proven to be unacceptable to most working Americans.  As for me, I'm stuck on Medicare which is being cut - drastically - and should I require a life-saving procedure or treatment anytime soon, I'm probably not going to get it as 'resources will have to be rationed' and guess who will be considered 'expendable'?  As I often say: elections have consequences. 

Now, as a distraction, I'm going to re-read my copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.  Although the book was published over 50 years ago, she was eerily prophetic.

Jim

[Sue]

So I had to look  up Atlas Shrugged because I've never read it.  Which led me to the word dystopian, and I had to click on that to see what it meant.  Which led me to an interesting article defining that, and that led me to the literature and I've read a few of those books.  Interesting.

Sue in Vancouver, USA

[Jim Scott]

So I had to look up Atlas Shrugged because I've never read it.  Which led me to the word dystopian, and I had to click on that to see what it meant.  Which led me to an interesting article defining that, and that led me to the literature and I've read a few of those books.  Interesting.

Sue ~

Although I'm not quite ready to declare America a dystopia, I'm pleased to have stirred your interest, in whatever form that took. 

Jim

[Pooter]

Right.. I can't see ANYONE gaming THAT system to their advantage.  Premiums will go down, huh?  In what alternate reality are these Democrat congressman in thinking that this bill was going to do anything but raise premiums, lower the level of care, decrease the access, etc.. ?

It certainly smells like this was intentional in order to get us into a single-payer government run system because gosh, the current system is bankrupt..  Well yeah, you stacked the deck against them!

Lordy, what's next...

Brian

[sgerrard]

I imagine the IRS will find a way to collect. Among other things, the extra tax would reduce refunds and tax credits. I believe that insurance policies will be allowed a 3 month waiting period for coverage of existing conditions, to discourage those who would pay the tax until insurance was needed. I think most people want health insurance anyway, since they never know when they might end up in an emergency room with a broken leg from a car accident.

On a lighter note, here is video from Seattle of a "flash mob." I am thinking that we should start putting one of these together for the symposium in Cincinnati in 2011. I nominate Jan and DHM to organize it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5PyIVVKoWU

Steve

[leapyrtwins]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36472308/ns/health-health_care

[4cm in Pacific Northwest]

Steve,

Apparently the flash mob is inspired by the TV series and the movie Glee. I have seen neither the TV series nor the movie so I am unsure of the bases for this street dancing movement, as I am NOT American Pop Culturally literate   on this topic yet. I will research and get back to you-all later.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36472308/ns/health-health_care

Jan,

The person who finally listened to me and agreed with my suggestion that I should have an MRI to look for a tumor was a “nurse practioner” at my doctor’s office. He, the NP, wrote the referral and I went to see the ENT. (3 cheer of that!)

However in that same office often I was challenged to get into see the actual doctor (My PCP).  With in the same month before I got the results of the MRI I went in to their clinic, as I could not sleep. One nurse practioner prescribed a muscle relaxant (BTW I later understood I could not sleep as the brain stem was so squished by the AN tumor). Being tired that week I lost my balance and put my back out. Again I could not get in to see the doctor as he was booked up. So I accepted a nurse practioner appointment as a replacement as I needed to see someone about my back -ASAP.  This was a different nurse practioner, in the same clinic, who prescribed for me a different drug (apparently unaware that I was prescribed a muscle relaxant the week before which somehow was not written in my chart… or something) and I had a terrible drug interaction. All this being the same day the ENT called with my diagnose of the AN. (One bad day) After the drug interaction (which included convulsions) I went to an RX site to read these drugs should NEVER have both been prescribed to me at the same time. So I wrote a letter to the doctor first informing him I was diagnosed with an acoustic neuroma (this was news to him and the nurse practioner had not yet informed him of the MRI results) and second of all I was questioning how I was prescribed interacting drugs by two separate nurse practioners within his SAME clinic. Gee the next day he suddenly had an opening to see me in his office to “talk”- and of course I was billed for a “talk”. (BOOO!)

The clinic, I discovered with time, was a disorganized chaotic fiasco mess. (Many staff was computer illiterate- it seemed) There were huge issues with communication between nurse practioner and doctor and I feel (now) the nurse practioners should NOT have given me those prescriptions. (On all levels there were record keeping problems- the nurses, not just nurse practioner, wrote terrible reports that had grammatical and spelling errors plus incomplete information)

This past year I wrote to the doctor, who has more of his patients go to the nurse practioners than see him as he is not available, and explained my frustration and that I felt I should be looking for a new clinic for my family as there had been one to many mistakes… When they screwed up with my child I was less than patient. One of his fellow doctors (he hired his son- I won’t touch that separate topic about relatives working in the same medical clinic issues) and a nurse stood there disagreeing with each other, in front of me and my child, about whether or not my child could (or could not) have an adult dose flu vaccine. There were such obvious inconsistencies and power struggles going on in the clinic.  I took my child and just walked out of the office without her getting a vaccine (never to return). I then went to a new clinic of “doctors" and got my child vaccinated.

I was happy that a good listening nurse practioner helped with the diagnoses of my mystery symptoms and was a catalyst in finding my AN tumor by writing a referral to a specialist… however I was NOT happy with the overzealous writing up of prescription drugs on the RX pad.

There are pros and cons here. I think the doctor chose this set up of having as many nurse practioners as doctors as it was “cost effective”. After my experience from that I have decided NEVER to go to a clinic that has a structural set up like that AGAIN (Fortunate in this country I currently have a choice to walk out and look elsewhere). I have only selected clinics that have a team of “doctors” with maybe one nurse practioner. I have experienced when you go to see a nurse practioner because your doctor is so booked up you cannot get in – major issues come up.

I feel that the doctor is ultimately responsible for ALL the staff in the clinic. And if their nurse practioner messes up that reflects on them- the doctor(s).

Currently my opinion is that it is ok for a nurse practioner to write up referral for a patient to see a specialist however I have had such negative experience with nurse practioners writing prescriptions, in my case, that I currently do not support that. I never had a nurse practioner in Canada when I lived there. The nurse practioner experience was new for me when I moved to Oregon State- here in the US. I thought the nurse practioner at my OBGYN office was great -however she never wrote up a prescription for me.

Jan thanks for sharing that article.

DHM