Health Care Reform: How It Will Affect You

MoneyWatch.com: Seven Ways the Shape of the Health Bill Can Influence Your Finances

(MoneyWatch.com)  This story was written by MoneyWatch.com's Michelle Andrews.

---

The political back-and-forth over health care reform has sometimes resembled a tennis match, with each day bringing new volleys and salvos from different interest groups and politicians. Keeping score is tough, in part because there are so many seemingly technical questions.

Should we end the tax exclusion for health insurance? If so, who should pay the tax: you, your employer, or the insurer? Should we sock the rich with an income tax surcharge to help pay for all this? How much help should the middle class get to pay for the plan?

These issues aren't just for wonks. How they shake out determine the shape of legislation that may have the greater influence over your financial future than any law this decade. As the congressional summer recess temporarily quiets the debate, here's your chance to get caught up on the issues.

1. Company contributions to employee plans

Does it affect you? It does if you get insurance through your job.

Politicians keep saying that if you like your current insurance you can keep it, but critics have raised serious doubts about whether they can make good on that promise. Even if you keep your current company-sponsored policy, health reform could put you on the hook for a bigger chunk of the premium. The House bill requires employers to contribute at least 72.5 percent of the premiums for singles and 65 percent for families, while the Senate bill requires a 60 percent employer contribution for both. Employers currently contribute a bit more than that: an average of 84 percent of an individual employee's premium and 73 percent of the premium for family coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Your employer might continue to be that generous; odds are, though, that its contribution would drop to the mandated level. Guess who'd make up the rest?

2. Health care tax exclusion

Does it affect you? Maybe, especially if your company's health plan is more generous than average.

At the moment you aren't taxed on the value of the health benefits you get, and your company gets a tax break for offering them. Some health reformers have long argued that this tax exemption should be eliminated because it encourages overly generous policies and overly liberal use of them.

A likely compromise would be to end the exemption only for the most generous benefits. You might have to pay tax on the full value of your policy if you have a real "Cadillac" contract; or you might be taxed only to the extent that your policy exceeds a certain threshold ― perhaps that of the average employer-sponsored policy, about $13,000 right now.

Even if negotiators decide to tax insurers and employers that provide these generous benefits rather than employees. But it hardly matters: Any tax would likely be passed on to you in the form of higher premiums, deductibles, and copayments, says Len Nichols, director of the health policy program at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan public policy think tank.

3. Extra taxes on the rich

Does it affect you? Maybe, if Washington decides you're rich.

The House bill includes a graduated tax surcharge of up to 5.4 percent on what it defines as wealthy households (singles with income more than $280,000 and couples with income more than $350,000). When some legislators complained that figure was too low, a $1 million threshold was proposed. Many experts believe it'll be next to impossible to foot health care reform's projected $1 trillion cost without some sort of tax increase, and "the surcharge has the virtue of allowing Obama to keep his campaign promise not to tax the middle class," says Nichols.

4. Insurance subsidies for consumers

Does it affect you? It could, if your income is less than four times the poverty level.

Both House and Senate bills would subsidize the cost of health insurance for families that aren't covered through work and who meet certain income guidelines. People with incomes up to four times the federal poverty level ― or $43,430 for an individual and $88,200 for a family of four ― would qualify for a sliding-scale subsidy to buy a policy on the national exchange. "Quite a few folks that would clearly be defined as middle class could get some help with premiums," says Kathleen Stoll, director of health policy for Families USA, a health care advocacy group.

Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who helped draft Massachusetts' universal health plan, says that the subsidy should extend to families at up to four times the poverty level. Setting the limit at three times poverty, as was done in Massachusetts, left too many people unable to afford coverage, he says. But as legislators try to trim the overall bills' price tag, the subsidy makes a tempting target. As a result, there's been talk of reducing the subsidy to three times the poverty level, or up to $32,490 for individuals and $66,150 for families of four.

5. The Medicare drug "donut hole"

Does it affect you? It does if you or a loved one participates in Medicare's drug coverage.

The House bill would gradually eliminate the provision in the Medicare Part D prescription drug law that leaves a gaping hole in coverage for seniors who spend more than $2,700 a year on drugs (coverage doesn't kick back in until they've spent $4,350). The donut hole helps keep a lid on the program's overall costs, but for the roughly 25 percent of seniors who end up there, the financial consequences can be steep. Under the House bill, drug companies would also have to provide a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescriptions filled within the coverage gap.

What will end up in the final bill is hard to predict, though. "Clearly, seniors will get some help with the donut hole," says Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now, a consumer group. "But how much and how it will be done is an open question."

6. Health insurance underwriting

Does it affect you? Yes, if you're buying an individual policy.

Normally insurers price individual insurance policies based on the risk you pose. Both proposed bills prohibit charging people higher premiums based on pre-existing medical conditions or gender, but they do allow insurers to take age into account, up to a point. Called "age rating," the current proposals specify that premiums for older people can't be any more than twice as expensive as those for younger people.

But keep an eye on the Senate Finance Committee, which is charged with figuring out how to pay for reform, but hasn't yet put forward its proposals. An earlier committee paper proposed allowing insurers to charge older people five times more than younger ones.

7. The burden on small business owners

Does it affect you? It does if you work for or own a small business.

Both bills provide tax credits to help some small employers buy health insurance for workers. If they don't, neither bill requires them to pay the same penalty as larger businesses. Small businesses that could buy coverage through a national exchange would presumably be able to get a better deal than they could buying directly from an insurer, since they'd have the advantage of being part of a much larger insurance pool.

The main question now is: How small is small? The House bill would provide a tax credit for employers with fewer than 25 employees, for example, while in the Senate, "small" for the purposes of the tax credit means fewer than 50 employees.

---

More from MoneyWatch
Health Care Reform: Stop Focusing on the Cost
Health Care Reform Cheat Sheet
These Health Care Stocks May Show Signs of Life Under ObamaCare
Video: How Health Care Reform Affects You

[expressways]

America deserves a news network that will provide news we need to know about controversial topics fraught with untrue spins:
Tell the true story about Joe Wilson?s position on funding health care for illegal immigrants. In 2003, Joe Wilson voted to provide federal funds for illegal immigrants' health care. The vote came on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 co-written by pharmaceutical company lobbyists, which contained Sec. 1011 authorizing $250,000 annually between 2003 and 2008 for government reimbursements to hospitals who provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants. The program has been extended through 2009 and there is currently a bipartisan bill in Congress to make it permanent. This comes from the esteemed congressman Wilson who yelled out ?you lie? at the president of the United States of America for clarifying that the health care bill he will sign does NOT include government coverage of illegal aliens.
  He also receives FREE health care under a single-payer government run system called TRICARE. This is the national program that covers veterans, and yet, he has voted against veterans health benefits 11 times in 8 years! WOW, what a typical Republican hypocrite. And, typically, he gets away with it.

[sbelknap01]

I'd like to put a few things in perspective for folks who are worried about what health care reform might cost them. I'm not wealthy but I don't dislike those of you who are - more power to you. First of all, please look at page two of your 1040 form. There is a line labeled "total tax." (That line gets compared to what has already been withheld from your paycheck and the difference is your refund or balance due) It's important that you know your "total tax" because that is how much you actually pay the federal government. Keep that in mind, just for a minute and think about this:
I'm over 50, female, diabetic. My husband is disabled, and covered by medicare and a work comp settlement. Our twenty year old son remains without health care, as do I. Son works and goes to school and helps take care of dad. I work (same company for 20 years, now, and I'm good at my job - I also like it, which is a blessing of sorts) My total tax last year was $432, which if you know much about taxes tells you that we don't earn much. We own a mortgage and a 10 year old car. Couple of cats and an old dog, some furniture. That's about it. But I earn too much to be covered by welfare type insurance and a policy with a high deductible would cost $500 a month. We'd pretty much have to stop eating and shut off the electricity to do that, so - no health insurance. I manage two visits a year to my doctor and by carefullly ignoring his rather desperate need for 'tests' I managed to buy my first new pair of eyeglasses in 5 years last week. We don't qualify for food stamps or any sort of assistance and don't need it, really - nobody misses any meals, the roof don't leak and the car started this morning so we're all good. This is the status quo: I have a lump in my breast, am at high risk for a heart attack due to high blood pressure, diabetic complications will certainly be a problem in the next few years (my feet tingle a lot), I haven't been to a dentist in years and my gums bleed a lot. My son needs to have cavities filled and new eyeglasses. If that lump in my breast is what I think it is, I won't live long enough to have that heart attack. If my son slips on the ice a breaks a leg...well let's just talk about that heart attack. If I do go down and I am rescued (likely, I think) the bill will be about $75000. My son's slip and fall will run about $12000 assuming it's a clean break. If both happen in the same year that my 7 year old 'temporary filling' goes south you can add $2000 to the dentist. A bad flu and we're close to $100,000.
Who do you think is going to pay for that? Me? Love to, I'll just write you a check. The house is worth less than I owe on it, the car would fetch about $1000 and leave us without a way to get to groceries or work, my savings account will not cover the property taxes as it is, but you're welcome to it - so far, I can't cover two percent of my bill.
For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, let me make it clear: you will pay for it. In fact, you already ARE paying for it, in cases just like this times thousands every week all over America.
So here are the choices you are making - you prefer to skip my $50 mammogram until it's full blown cancer costing $100,000 or more, the $100 high blood pressure screening and meds until the $50,000 heart attack happens, the diabetic treatments of a few hundred a year until the neuropathy disables me and prevents me from taking care of my husband, skip the dentist for the cavity until the crown is required...or...look at your 'total tax' line again. Can you afford to increase it by 1%? If YOUR medical and dental costs go DOWN because your providers are no longer writing off hundreds of thousands of uncollectible debt? I think you probably can.
And before you get all excited, let me just admit it up front: Yes, I should be working harder, making more money, supporting my own needs and not putting all this off on you - but let me make it perfectly clear: no one, NO ONE is going to give me a $100,000 salary increase, no magic wand is going to put me and the millions of other working poor into the middle class. So you get to pay higher costs to support the write-offs, or put preventative health care on my menu. Your choice. Me? I think you'll spend less of your hard earned money if you support health care reform.

[ricklf1]

Opps!! I made a huge mistake...I actually Voted for Obama.....Well I have seen enough of his idea of Change and realize too late that I cannot afford his CHANGE. Is there anyway to have a RECALL ELECTION ? I am sick of Obama and want to try THE OTHER GUY.

[tdj63]

There sure is a lot of talk about who's who and who's in control and what others want for somebody else. What makes anyone think that universal healthcare reform, as it is written in it's 1001 pages, is the best approach to reform. Why are other Americans lobbying against those who like their insurance? I can tell you for a fact that in Quebec, Province The vast majority of Montrealians possess additional private care on top of their public care because of it's limitations. They pay twice! If this were to happen in the States with how Obama plans on funding his health care you could wind up with some people paying three times. Everyone should have to pay into the system regardless of their income. Taking care of yourself and your family is priority number one.

A comparison between medicare and universal health care is a poor one due to the fact that you are primarily assisting the elderly and others with specific needs and there is plenty of waste and fraud. You scale that up to include all americans and illegal aliens and you will have a mess of unparralled proportion. I have read the data from WHO and the criteria used in determing these rankings is purely objective data based on criteria irrelevant to the U.S. and it's society. It takes, such things as, total number of immunizations against curable disease into consideration. that alone puts behind Botswana. When you fly to America you don't need to get immuno shots because malaria and then likes have been irradicated. Fly to India sometime and see how many times you get poked before you get on that jet.

Really, those of you who think universal health care is best for all of us should back-off and re-calibrate, in Obama's famous verbage, and look at this in terms of reform not drastic change. Thers is not a good universal health care system out there right now. My father in law is a doctor in Canada and went to the Cleveland Clinic for heart surgery. The Cancer center in Houston, Texas spends more money in research than all of Canada spends on it's cancer research and the numbers bare themselves out in cancer survival rates and prolonged life expectancy in almost all it's forms. Reform, yes I agree, but universal health care no, I do not. One more thing, please back off on you're fringe righty BS because I am certain you do not no what's best for me and my family.

[gina345]

I think passing this health bill is a great thing. I think all the REP and DEM agree the health care need fixing
I am paying more than ever now.

[puzzler125]

I was honest about being overweight and a smoker so I paid 1.7 times the standard rate. Someone I know lied about her smoking and weight and got away with the standard rate. I was penalized for telling the truth! (Before you start ******** at me I quit smoking years ago).

[nojoy01]

Well, if it's any comfort to you puzzler125, your policy was a valid policy while the unknown "her" policy wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Ya see, every insurance policy, life, health, auto, home, etc. has all of that little fine print gobbledygook just above where you sign your name. The important part of that gobbledygook as far as your situation is concerned is that in part is basically says that the policy is being issued based on the facts provided by the applicant and that any omissions or falsehoods in the application that are pertinent to the underwriters (the insurance co) decision to offer insurance to you at a prescribed rate (the premium) renders the policy (which is a contract) null & void. Then the insurance companys' only obligation is to refund to you the amount of premiums paid into the policy. Even then I wouldn't doubt that they could keep part of the premiums paid in to offset the costs of implementing, maintaining, and closing out the policy. Not to mention that any profit from the premiums paid in & not used might have been paid out to shareholders as dividends. So you did the right thing. Your insurance was valid, & if she had to go to the hospital overweight & w/nicotine in her blood stream, her's wasnt.

[pubsrtoast]

Judging from this blog, one thing is particularly evident. If we could harvest the brainpower coming from the right, we could turn a pinwheel....

[nojoy01]

Is there any vacant land in your neighborhood? I'd like to set up one of those windfarm electricty generating things. Judging from your comments on this blog it'd be a real money maker.

[pubsrtoast]

Employers currently contribute a bit more than that: an average of 84 percent of an individual employee's premium and 73 percent of the premium for family coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Your employer might continue to be that generous; odds are, though, that its contribution would drop to the mandated level. Guess who'd make up the rest?


So lets see, without a mandate the employer is going to be generous, once there is a mandate though, the employer contributions will drop to the minimum. What a stupid argument and one worthy of your local teabagger (when they aren't out making death threats that is).

M

[nojoy01]

OK pubsrtoast, I'll bite. Since the basic information on the employers' contribution is correct (employers who provide a health care insurance option for their employees in this country are ALREADY being "generous" with the 84/73 percent average contribution in spite of your snide little comment)& ALL of the current bills circulating around congress for instituting "health care reform" specify a 73/64 percent contribution level then the employers who pay more, according to your comment, they being the greedy, blood sucking, profit maximising tyrants that so many seem to believe, would be foolish to NOT lower their contributions and pocket the difference as some more of that evil profit thing. What? You haven't read any of the bills and so you don't know what you're talking about? Why doesn't that surprise me. What? Your comment about stupidity & teabaggers is the best you can contribute to the debate on health care reform? Well, that's OK. We do have the second amendment in this country and that allows you to say any silly thing that comes into your head. Which brings me to the best thing that I can say re: your comment. Congratulations! You have participated in this great democracy by exercising your second amendment rights to freedom of speech.

[pubsrtoast]

Uhm, I wasn't exactly waving my gun around and claiming it doesn't kill people only people kill people. That is usually the forte of the tea-baggers. I was exercising my FIRST amendment rights nojoy01. You might want to read the Bill of Rights before you worry about the language in some health bill and how some fictitious employer who doesn't have to provide coverage to begin with is going to suck the life out of his employees.

[nojoy01]

Ok, Ok, ya got me. :) Congratulations on participating in this great democracy by exercising your FIRST amendment rights. Now, per pubsrtoast, "You might want to read the Bill of Rights before you worry about the language in some health bill and how some fictitious employer who doesn't have to provide coverage to begin with is going to suck the life out of his employees." Nice segue to irrelevancy. Convolueted & misleading. Your original comment seemed to imply that the 84/73 per cent split was not true, that only a "generous" employer would be doing this, that it was not possible for employers to decide to drop to the "mandated" minium contribution (thus costing the employee more), concluding that the arguement was "stupid" (how so?) and finally throwing in an irrelevant comment about "teabaggers" & a gratuitous insult. Ok, I admit it, I turned the First & Second amendments around. If that's the only mistake I make in this life, I'm a happy camper. But you still haven't explained how your response to the statements listed are anything but a reaction based upon your personal prejudices.

[pubsrtoast]

No joy, seriously, I simply meant that many employers use health insurance as a benefit to attract the best workers. I don't see this changing because new lower standards are mandated and really, since insurance isn't required at all at this point, i question an employers motivation to change.

[mars7578]

The healthcare overhaul isn't about individuals as much about a system that is heading for a meltdown.Being a free market capitalist nation,ideally the solution should be a profitable ,effective, and affordable system for most with a government safety for the rest.However, we have allowed special interests to ration ,deny and make heathcare too expensive for millions.All data points toward further devastation.Congress should exert its authority and create a free market capitalist healthcare system that good for AMERICA.This means regulation of profits .There would be no need for tax increase and more money would go back into the companies.The only losers would be those who get extreme compensation.This extreme compensation just as with oil is the driver of the heathcare system when it should be supply and demand.The only other viable option is governmental takeover.

[Heather3103]

I think its all talk because Doctors in America are money hungry greedy selfish beings who take the oath they took at the beginning of their career as a joke. I have seen many doctors for a few things like an Ear infection that got so bad i have lost hearing in that hear and no doctor would even look at me unless i gave them $1500 dollars and the local clinic just kept pushing me out the door and telling me there is nothing they can do.. I don't know any 24 year old that could hand a Doctor $1500 just to look at the issue with no promise to fix the problem....
ITS ALL A BUNCH OF CRAP

[nojoy01]

The primary way health care reform will influence your finances:

Two of the major selling points of the bills currently circulating in congress is that A. Health insurance will be mandated for all. That is, you will obtain health insurance or face fines & penalties and then still be forced to obtain health insurance. B. The insurance companies will not be allowed to turn anyone down because of "pre-existing conditions". The thinking is that the premiums of the healthy people who are forced to get insurance will cover the payouts for the sick people (what else is a pre-existing condition except the acknowledgement that someone is already not healthy)that will sign up for health insurance. One of two scenarios will follow. Either the people with pre-existing conditions will be charged premiums high enough to cover the expected payouts consistent with treating their condition OR everyone's insurance premiums will climb to a level that will cover the expected payouts for medical care of the (potentially) millions of people with pre-existing conditions. And, of course, the older the "boomers" get, the more the young & healthy will get it "socked" to them to help pay for the rise in health care expenses as the "boomers" get older. Remember, the first of the "boomers" will not be hitting retirement age & thus qualify for medicare for another 5-10 years. Depending on whose definition of "boomers" that you use. So, explain it to me, where are these massive savings & how does this make health insurance "affordable"?

[careing]

There is a lot of talk of health care reform.Has anyone talked to the people who see what is really happening now on a daily basis?
Nurses deal with it every day and no one seems to want their opinion.
There are safety issues that are only getting worse with the changes that are being made by hospitals to make or save money.
The administration doesn't ask our opinion and neigher does anyone else. We are the ones taking care of the patients 12-14hr a day. The physicians only see them for 5 minutes a day once the procedures or surgery or whatever has been done.
My main concern is patient safety and patient care. No one seems to be addressing that.
Maybe they need to.

[xlib]

Right on, right on. As a nurse myself, I too have the same concerns. I have worked with Canadian nurses, gone to grad school with Canadian nurses and have cared for Canadians who come here for care they can't get in Canada.
As for wanting our opinion, seriously doubt it.

[nojoy01]

If abortion is covered under the new rules & regulations for health care the pro-lifers need to get on board and support the bills. I mean, by the time the pregnant woman gets through standing in line for her dr's appointment & then has her "elective" surgery scheduled the baby ought to be about six months old when the surgery date rolls around. Of course, the down side of this is that abortion in cases of rape & incest may also be called "elective" surgery. Don't know what they'd do in the case of danger to the mothers' health. Then again, maybe they could "take a pill". The abortion pill.

[noloyalisti]

Anytime you hear the work "Freedom" in anything, it was likely a rich corporate person or extremist right using their mindless bullet point.

[whatisnextamerica]

Yes vote all out office

[glgphd]

Increasingly disillusioned by Obama's collectivist dreams, Americans are finally seeing that PelosiObamaReidCare (PORC) would violate the rights of doctors, patients, and business owners on a massive scale unprecedented in the history of the United States.

Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine (http://www.doctorsonstrike.com) cites H.R. 3200 with 10 violations of our rights:

1. Forcing people to buy health insurance.
2. Forcing employers to provide health insurance for employees.
3. Forcing one group (wealthy, soda-drinkers, etc.) to pay for the health insurance of another group.
4. Forcing future generations to pay for the healthcare of the present generation.
5. Forcing patients to participate in a government-run plan.
6. Forcing doctors to participate in a government-run plan.
7. Forcing hospitals and other healthcare providers to participate in a government-run plan.
8. Forcing insurance companies to compete with a government-run plan.
9. Forcing insurance companies to write policies that offer coverage for specific conditions.
10. Forcing one group (older Americans on Medicare) to accept reduced benefits in order to fund other public health care plans.

These are not rumors. These are stubborn facts that make Americans stubbornly resist PORC.

American's believe that the end - universal health care - does not justify the means - gross violations of our rights. However, the left-over lefties behind PORC embrace the idea that the end justifies the means. So did Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Chavez. Oh, and did I mention the One's mentor, Saul Alinsky? The collectivist justification is that the interests of the collective require the subordination and sacrifice of the individual.

But not here in the United States. Our country was founded on the idea of individual rights. Our founding documents are imbued with the philosophy of individualism--the idea that individuals are ends-in-themselves; that we have the right to exist for our own sake; that no one has the right to force anyone to live for the sake of others; that we have the right to be left alone to pursue our own ends in life as long as we do not infringe on the liberty of others to do the same; that we should deal with one another by voluntary means; that the proper role of government is to protect our rights.

Americans are not stupid. We realize that we must act now to bring a halt to this leftist-led, lemming-like leap into health care he!l. We are mad as he!l, and we are not going to take it anymore!

The politicians are turning a deaf ear to us so we need to crank up the volume--civilly--until they get the message:

"Earth to politicians: Health care is not a right, doctors are not your slaves, businesses are not your banks, the wealthy are not your wet nurses, and patients are not your pawns."

Dr. Gregory Garamoni
Founder, Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine
http://www.doctorsonstrike.com

[wogerwabbit]

look up quack in the dictionary and this guys picture is next to it

[pubsrtoast]

psychologist eh, couldn't hack med school?

[philosimphy]

Seriously. A Quack. http://happilybitter.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/doctors-on-strike-leader-is-a-piece-of-work-seriously/

[nottellin1]

Medicare & Medicaid don't normally have co-pays. Are you sayimng that you can't get help form them? I am sorry about your wife but if the US plans ends up looking like Canada's, there is no prescription benefit anyway. Just because other countries call their plans 'Medicare', this does not mean that it is the same as the US Medicare plan. For instance, Canada's lauded Medicare has no coverage for prescription drugs (some coverage for seniors), no dental, no optical and an improved average wait of 17 months for hip replacement surgery. Whoo hoo, I can't wait for a plan like this!

[shortononeend]

For me and my wife, you people have the nerve to say we did not plan for our future. some of us are not lucky enough, to see our plans through. I imagine some of you would say it was my fault, that I was plowed into by a careless driver who ran a red light and changed my life. from everyday work, to not being able to work any more.

After maxing out 4 credit cards to keep abreast of health care for me and my wife, after having my cheaper cost medications held up at the border by the Bush administration, I no longer could afford to keep afloat with the cost, Some where a man has to pay his debts, and I certainly could not afford my wifes medications paying state side cost.

So I would like to ask one question.

I would rather have to wait six-nine months knowing I was going to get some kind of medical treatment, than the present plan, of not getting any treatment because I cannot afford to pay the co-pays.
and these protestors, say they are pro-life. give me a break.

[xlib]

Well, number one, how did Bush hold your meds up at the border? Most get them by mail and I haven't heard of any government interference. If you live in NY state there are at least 3 very low cost health care plans available.
So, you are saying that if you or your wife required radiation treatment for cancer you would wait six months? If you or your wife required hip replacement you would gladly wait 18 months.
As for you saying "protesters are pro-life", where did that come from?
You people don't even know what the heck is going on. We are PO'd because the jokers in Congress haven't even read the dam bill. We are PO'd ecause tort reform isn't on this bill. This bill leads to rationing, that's a fact. There is no way in hell it isn't.
BTW-don't like being called a nazi because I am sick and tired of being lied to by the government.
t

[nojoy01]

Hey, xlib, don't get too upset when some clown calls you a nazi. That's because when some clown can't refute/debate what you are saying they ignore the message & attack the messenger. It's a standard bs trick used in politics to keep people's minds from evaluating the message by trying to damage/destroy the source of the message. If you think about it, everytime you post a reasoned comment and the best some clown can do is to call you a nazi then you have exposed one more non thinking ignorant poster.

[nottellin1]

I love it when Bam Bam talks about "attacking tough problems" and "doing the hard work". What a joke! All Bam Bam does is throw money that the US doesn't have looking for easy wins, like healthcare.

My favorite line is "whatever % of Americans support some form of healthcare reform". The only way the can come up with a double digit % is to use the phrase "some form", never "this health care reform". Are we spinning yet?

[davidbthelen]

Here are some thoughts concerning H1N1. Many parents and adults, who are working, do not have paid sick leave at their place of employment. There are many employees, such as waiters/waitresses, cooks, retail stores cashiers, etc who are in front of the public. There must be new guidelines to perhaps include paid sick leave. This way these employees will take off as soon as flu like symptoms appears. Also, many of these workers do not have health insurance. There must be information on where these employees may see a doctor at a reduced fee. A doctor at a reduced fee must also see children of these employees who may not have health insurance.
There must be new guidelines for children who are sick, for employees to take time off to take their children to the doctor?s office. There must be new guidelines for employees to take time off, perhaps with pay, to watch their kids at home while sick.
These are some thoughts concerning the prevention of the spread of the H1N1 virus.
Here are some thoughts how to pay for time off for people first showing signs of flu. We have the science and math of insurance actuary. Insurance companies will calculate for so many people who are well, pay so much in health premiums. This amount will be more than for so many people who are sick.
There will be emergency room visits for so many people who are exposed to this H1N1 virus. There should be actuaries who can calculate that for so much cost to include paid time off for certain workers who work with the public. This amount would be less than for so many people in the public who are exposed to the H1N1 virus dealing with an infected worker.
The Honorable Obama should perhaps sign an executive order to include paid time off benefits and doctors visits within Medicaid. These extra costs accumulated by Medicaid would be more than made up by the extra emergency room visits. This would be how to pay for preventing the spread of this H1N1 virus.