Jackson Free Press

Shortly after the U.S. House of Representatives passed the historic health-reform bill, Gov. Haley Barbour released the following statement, verbatim:

"I hope this healthcare plan covers hearing aids, because it's clear Democrats who voted for it have not heard the majority of Americans who didn't want government-controlled healthcare crammed down their throats. States cannot sustain another massive unfunded mandate, senior citizens are threatened by enormous cuts to Medicare, and American taxpayers and businesses can't afford huge tax increases in the midst of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression.

"It's truly sad that Rep. Bart Stupak sold out Pro-Life ideals by settling on an executive order that purports to make sure no federal funds in this healthcare plan are used to pay for abortions. Stupak and his on-the-fence colleagues have entrusted the lives of the unborn to the man who, as a senator, had a record of voting with the National Abortion Rights Action League 100 percent of the time. Nothing prevents President Obama from rescinding that executive order at any time, and it's questionable whether it even has any true legal effect. Congressman Gene Taylor, D-Miss., told Fox News today that 'anything the President does by Executive Order he can undo by Executive Order.'

Previous Comments

ID

156829

Comment

It's a sad day for America, the passing of this government controlled health-care. Health-care is a privilege not a right. If you think health-care is expensive now just wait till it's government controlled!

Author

thornton72

Date

2010-03-22T07:36:43-06:00

ID

156830

Comment

I don't know about y'all, but I'm psyched up about paying more in taxes. But wait, didn't Obama pledge not to raise taxes on families making less than 250k? Hmm....

Author

RobbieR

Date

2010-03-22T08:36:23-06:00

ID

156833

Comment

Folks, this isn't a site for empty rhetoric. Please explain how this health-care bill is going to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000, and back up your arguments citing specific sections of the bill. Otherwise, take the fearmongering hysteria elsewhere; we debate facts here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-03-22T10:00:37-06:00

ID

156835

Comment

Here's a convenient list of new taxes and tax increases contained in the HCR bill. http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-government-health-a4658

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-03-22T10:11:04-06:00

ID

156836

Comment

Here's a graphic that shows how different people are affected by health-reform bill. Note that only people making *over* $250,000 will see higher taxes. And here's a story that explains it pretty well.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-03-22T10:15:52-06:00

ID

156838

Comment

Funny how a majority vote is being sold as some kind of tyrannical attack on democracy. Considering that many of the provisions won't take effect until 2014, the Republicans have plenty of time to make their case to the public. If they can convince the electorate that the bill was a mistake, there is ample time to repeal it. This effort exemplifies the way our constitutional republic is supposed to work. The Democrats ran on a platform of health care reform. They won overwhelming majorities. They passed health care reform. Now, the Republicans claim that right-wing polls show Americans do not support such reform. But our democracy is not based on polling. It is based on elections. Let the Republicans run on repealing health care reform and see if they can win majorities.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-03-22T10:42:11-06:00

ID

156839

Comment

It may not technically be a tax, but requiring people who may not want to purchase Health care insurance to in fact purchase it will certainly take money from the pockets of people making less than $250k a year. I really don't see how that is even constitutional but I guess all that is going to get fought over soon enough.

Author

WMartin

Date

2010-03-22T10:42:16-06:00

ID

156841

Comment

The discerning reader will note how far the Guvner is being forced into hyperbole with this argument. He's a bright guy -- when he has the facts on his side, he tends to argue them. When he doesn't, though, he slips into demagoguery, and, quite frankly, it's not his strong suit. Some actual truthiness here: 10 Immediate Benefits of HCR This is (a.) not government-controlled healthcare -- government-controlled healthcare would have some identifiable differences along the lines of government. controlling. the. healthcare. This is health insurance reform. (It's like "tort reform," except your donors don't like it, Haley.) There are also not (b.) "enormous cuts in Medicare" but, rather, cuts to the Medicare Advantage program that grosses up Medicare payouts by 15% in order to put operating and profit dollars in the pockets of the insurance companies that administer the program. This is essentially the Dems saying that experiment didn't work. The other "cuts" to Medicare are actual efficiencies -- programs to implement performance-based payments and to equalize expenses across the country. In other words, cuts to a government program to make it more efficient. (Ergo, Haley hates it....?) And (c.) is anyone else confused that Haley wrings his hands over this "government takeover of healthcare," and, in the same paragraph, laments cuts to government-run healthcare. Haley generally uses logic when he's got some available; in this case, he's bone dry.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-03-22T10:46:54-06:00

ID

156842

Comment

Also, watch out for untruths about how it will affect "small" businesses. This is from MSNBC Q&A: Q: I own a small business. Would I have to buy insurance for my workers? What help could I get? A: It depends on the size of your firm. Companies with fewer than 50 workers wouldn't face any penalties if they didn't offer insurance. Companies could get tax credits to help buy insurance if they have 25 or fewer employees and a workforce with an average wage of up to $50,000. Tax credits of up to 35 percent of the cost of premiums would be available this year and would reach 50 percent in 2014. The full credits are for the smallest firms with low-wage workers; the subsidies shrink as companies' workforces and average wages rise. Firms with more than 50 employees that do not offer coverage would have to pay a fee of up to $2,000 per full- time employee if any of their workers got government-subsidized insurance coverage in the exchanges. The first 30 workers would be excluded from the assessment. Read more: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34609984/ns/health-health_care/#ixzz0ivQyzL0a

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-03-22T10:59:05-06:00

ID

156843

Comment

I *almost* feel sorry for some of the people passing along the talking points from the insurance lobby as the truth comes outs. Almost, but not quite. *No one* should pass along info without checking it out.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-03-22T11:00:30-06:00

ID

156844

Comment

iTodd posts stuff direct from John Amato's blog...but it's those who are passing along "talking points from the insurance lobby" that get scolded? #3 was funny..."Free preventative care for all". News flash -- it's not free. Someone is paying for it -- the question is who?

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-03-22T11:11:44-06:00

ID

156845

Comment

It may not technically be a tax, but requiring people who may not want to purchase Health care insurance to in fact purchase it will certainly take money from the pockets of people making less than $250k a year. I really don't see how that is even constitutional but I guess all that is going to get fought over soon enough. The personal mandate may be a tough one to swallow, but I think it ultimately makes sense. People who exercise their "freedom" not to pay for health insurance end up getting their healthcare via the emergency room, which the rest of us pay for in premiums. If you don't want a health insurance policy then you can consider the tax an excise tax against the risk you pose to the system, similar to taxes paid for fire, police and other emergency services.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-03-22T11:34:26-06:00

ID

156846

Comment

[quote]The personal mandate may be a tough one to swallow, but I think it ultimately makes sense. People who exercise their "freedom" not to pay for health insurance end up getting their healthcare via the emergency room, which the rest of us pay for in premiums. If you don't want a health insurance policy then you can consider the tax an excise tax against the risk you pose to the system, similar to taxes paid for fire, police and other emergency services.[/quote] And those wealthy enough to pay for all their medical costs out of pocket? Screw 'em?

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-03-22T11:36:09-06:00

ID

156847

Comment

Thank you... I ask the following hypothetical questions> Mr. No Forced Insurance, who pays when you are forced to go to the emergency room with a life threatening accident, or do you propose that the hospital turn you away because you have no insurance. Mrs. No Mandated Coverage, age 49, what do you do when you find out you have cancer, and you can't locate affordable insurance because everyone turns you down because of a pre-existing condition and you aren't old enough for Medicare, another one of those government run health programs. Just wondering.

Author

lanier77

Date

2010-03-22T12:01:18-06:00

ID

156849

Comment

iTodd posts stuff direct from John Amato's blog...but it's those who are passing along "talking points from the insurance lobby" that get scolded? Actually, I didn't "post stuff direct" -- I posted a link, just like you did from ATR -- Grover Norquist and his "Drown Government in a Bathtub" Brigade. If I say that I don't think *reporting healthcare benefits on a W-2* is a tax -- are you going to feel scolded? ;-) #3 was funny..."Free preventative care for all". News flash -- it's not free. Someone is paying for it -- the question is who? This refers to Federal minimums set for qualifying insurance programs (and increased services through Medicare, if I read it correctly) for wellness and prevention. Who pays? We do. It's baked in. Plan will need to have it. Will it cost an arm and a leg -- probably not; preventative and wellness care are clearly the cheaper parts of the bargain, and the task forces in charge of setting these minimums will likely be a cross-section of the interests involved. (If they have any time away from the Death Panels, that is. ;-) And might preventative care not indeed be a smart thing compared to disease-care and the current approach of emergency room visits (the most expensive care) for the uninsured?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-03-22T12:09:09-06:00

ID

156850

Comment

And those wealthy enough to pay for all their medical costs out of pocket? Screw 'em? Pay the surtax and the skip the policy. The unwashed masses thank you for supporting the country that has given you so much. ;-)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-03-22T12:14:05-06:00

ID

156851

Comment

[quote]Pay the surtax and the skip the policy. The unwashed masses thank you for supporting the country that has given you so much. ;-) [/quote] Wow. I wonder who else we could tax for the right to pay their bills themselves? We could include food, utilities, transportation...subsidize everything, and tax anyone who wants to just pay for it themselves.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-03-22T12:20:39-06:00

ID

156852

Comment

Lanier77- Depending on the type of cancer you have,usually incurable ones, you automatically qualify for SS disability and Medicare no matter what age you are.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-03-22T12:43:08-06:00

ID

156854

Comment

Mark, do you have anything better than a facile slippery slope argument? So much of the conservative argument against this reform has been the same sort of argument. Do you have anything of substance to add, or do you just not like progressive taxes?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-03-22T14:24:59-06:00

ID

156856

Comment

[quote]Mark, do you have anything better than a facile slippery slope argument?[/quote] That was more properly a reductio ad absurdum, not a slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument would be if I had warned against the HCR by predicting that it would actually lead to the subsidization of food, utilities, etc by taxing those who can afford (and prefer) to pay out of pocket for those expenses. That was not my argument. I was pointing out the absurdity of the idea by applying it to parallel situations. [quote]Do you have anything of substance to add, or do you just not like progressive taxes? [/quote] Are you dismissing proponents of free market economics and limited government as having nothing of substance to add? I'd think having even a nominal representation of that politico-economic viewpoint would be something "of substance", but perhaps I'm wrong. You are correct that I do not "like" progressive taxes; however, my position rests not on my emotions or state of affection, but rather on a twin platform of principles based on human nature and practice learned from historical examples. As taxes become more "progressive", the economic environment for the wealth producers (investors, innovators, and entrepreneurs) becomes increasingly less attractive, and as a result everyone suffers when they are disincentivized from taking economic risks. See the companies lined up to get out of California as an example.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-03-22T14:41:44-06:00

ID

156857

Comment

I wish I had more time today, this is the best discussion that has gone on here in weeks. People who exercise their "freedom" not to pay for health insurance end up getting their healthcare via the emergency room, which the rest of us pay for in premiums. Not necessarily. Young healthy people may not see the need for health insurance. Not to mention those people that might just want to pay for their own care, strange as it may sound to actually pay for services rendered to you yourself. I didn't have health insurance through my 20's and I never needed it. Now they will all be required to buy something they don't want or need. That doesn't sound like any sort of "freedom" at all. I guess the surtax for those people puts the lie to the "no taxes for people under $250k" slogan. Of course the insurance pools will need those types of people to buy in to pay for those older and/or sicker people that the insurance couldn't afford to pay out benefits for otherwise.

Author

WMartin

Date

2010-03-22T14:53:51-06:00

ID

156859

Comment

Wow. I wonder who else we could tax for the right to pay their bills themselves? We could include food, utilities, transportation... subsidize everything, and tax anyone who wants to just pay for it themselves. We subsidize all of those things in spades - farm subsidies, oil & gas subsidies, quasi-municipal utilities as well as the corporate types that are allowed to maintain monopolies. Mark, I understand where you're coming from ideologically, and it's that frame that I disagree with. In my opinion, health insurance is not a "free market" solution, particularly the reality of insurance and our dependence on its role in the healthcare system as it stands today. The fact that health insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust law, for instance, makes it clear that they're a special case. I don't think this particular reform is the best solution -- I think single-payer makes more sense -- but I see the president's logic (and others) that we couldn't up-end the entire system in that way given the decades and decades of history. You talk about this taxation curbing innovation -- I don't think any of this regulation or taxation is going to curb "innovation" in the insurance industry, because I don't know that there's been an extraordinary amount of innovation in that industry. If you mean the requirement of companies to offer insurance or pay penalties, I'm sure there will be some cases of it working in both directions. (I'm looking to get a tax credit almost immediately in my company for the policies we already have in place.) And as those cases become apparent where companies feel an undue hardship, I bet we'll be tweaking the law to make it make more sense. But somehow we've got to get everybody into the system, and using the existing insurance infrastructure (plus Medicaid plus Medicare) to make that happen is the reality on the ground. And as for California, I don't know the state's problems intimately, but I do know that it has struggled for YEARS because of caps to property taxes and its onerous public referendum system. That probably has at least something to do with what might drive companies out of California (along with, say, resource issues like water) if that is indeed the problem. It seems unlikely that progressive taxation is the sole culprit.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-03-22T15:22:59-06:00

ID

156860

Comment

Not necessarily. Young healthy people may not see the need for health insurance. Not to mention those people that might just want to pay for their own care, strange as it may sound to actually pay for services rendered to you yourself. I didn't have health insurance through my 20's and I never needed it. Now they will all be required to buy something they don't want or need. That doesn't sound like any sort of "freedom" at all. Fortunately you weren't in a traumatic car accident or the victim of a crime in your 20s. Not everyone is that lucky. "Health" is not a constant, it's a variable. Just because you eat carrots and look both ways doesn't mean you won't become an unfunded mandate on the healthcare system through no fault of your own. And, guess what -- you're going to damn well expect to be cared for. Result? A bankruptcy for you, plus higher premiums and/or more government debt and taxes for the rest of us. Unless we do something about it. (Which we just did, in that imperfect way that we always do.) Not that I'm *blaming* BTW -- I didn't carry insurance through all of my 20s either, although I tried when possible. (Had a gap in my early 30s, come to think of it.) When I did pay, I either paid ridiculous sums for personal policies or, in one case, I paid union dues (Writers Guild) plus ridiculous sums for healthcare coverage, only to later find out that the insurance company had committed fraud against the union and ended up bankrupting on the policies. (I hadn't used them much, but my premiums were worthless.)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-03-22T15:29:33-06:00

ID

156861

Comment

I've been somewhat uneasy about mandatory coverage, but think about this: you have to buy insurance if you drive a car. It's government-mandated (albeit not from the federal level). How is this any different from mandated health insurance?

Author

golden eagle

Date

2010-03-22T15:34:27-06:00

ID

156862

Comment

Golden- the state mandates you have to car insurance if you own and drive a car on the highways, they don't mandate everybody has to have car insurance even if you don't own a car. Not the same thing.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-03-22T15:40:40-06:00

ID

156863

Comment

True, but we all will have health issues that will require a visit to a doctor's office or even hospitalization some day, whether it's through illness, accidents or physical assaults of some sort.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2010-03-22T16:02:25-06:00

ID

156865

Comment

Todd -- I'm not going to respond at length to most of your post, as I think for the most part it's a restatement of our fundamental ideological differences (I say that simply as an observation, not as a criticism of your reply). I do think that you are perhaps unfairly sticking me with ownership of the imperfections of the current economic realities in the US -- as if my ideological worldview wants to accept some of the existing subsidies and just reject the new ones that I disagree with. Pointing out the imperfections of the current system (and the existence of current government intervention) is not really an argument for more government intervention -- I would need to see a cogent argument that suggests the problems are actually caused by the free market mechanisms itself, rather than the existing government intervention stifling the cost-lowering, quality-improving, innovation-rewarding free market economic forces. I do want to address one comment specifically, though. [quote]You talk about this taxation curbing innovation -- I don't think any of this regulation or taxation is going to curb "innovation" in the insurance industry, because I don't know that there's been an extraordinary amount of innovation in that industry.[/quote] I disagree with that statement fundamentally. My primary objection is that those sorts of statements are, by their nature, incredibly limited by their historical constraints. Obviously, if we could envision what sort of advances in efficiency or management might revolutionize the insurance industry, then we'd be smart to risk some capital pursuing the idea. Secondarily, I think even if you are talking within the context of our current historically-limited knowledge, I think it's shortsighted to say that there's no or little room for innovation. I'll give you an example. I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield provided through work (or rather, taken out of my overall potential earnings), but my wife does not have employer-provided health insurance. We examined our options in traditional insurance and decided to opt for a health-cost sharing program. It's not insurance and not bound by insurance regulations. They operate with much lower overhead, and many of the discounts they have negotiated with healthcare providers is due to the lack of extra paperwork and red tape that typically accompanies payment through traditional insurance companies. It is vastly cheaper for us, and provides all the coverage we need. Fortunately, our program was one of three that were granted exemptions from the new regulations contained within the HCR (and only some very active lobbying on behalf of these programs saved them from being regulated right out of existence). Now, we're already in a situation where (as I understand it) no new cost-sharing programs like these may open for business without being subject to the rules and regulations of the HCR law (that is, those who wish to enroll in a new cost-sharing program would still be subject to the personal mandate excise tax). In effect, they've created a quasi-monopoly for these three companies and they only have to compete with each other now. But suppose that the HCR had been passed without the exemptions, or had been passed in a time when these programs didn't exist at all. What was very clearly the best option for my family wouldn't be available at all -- or, at best, I'd still have to pay the personal mandate excise tax ON TOP of the cost of our cost-sharing program fee, because of my "risk" to society, even though I am financially prepared to deal with any medical situation, from walk-in clinic visits, to ER trips, to major surgery or long-term illness. That is a major reduction in my economic freedom and choice, and that's a shame.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-03-22T16:14:33-06:00

ID

156867

Comment

I heard rumors the broke-stick dog and GOP leader, Rusty Limpbaugh, said earlier he would leave the USA if the Health Care Bill passed. I went to his dungeon (aka website) and scanned several satanic verses for evidence but saw no mention of his departure. What's up with that? Is he leaving for real, and is he taking Newt Gingrish, Karl Rove, the GOP, RNC and the Tea (terrible and egregious a-holes) Party with him. Why is the tea party calling Congressman Lewis the N-word, Congressman Frank the F-word and spitting on other Democrats? Gingrish said yesterday that passing the Health Care Bill is going to mess up the country for the Democrats like the Civil Rights Bills or legislations did. Progress and/or change draws out a bigot faster than a lynching party when no one is looking. I'm glad the bill passed and can't wait to see how everything plays out. Again, I will say all a republican is good for these days is hate, racism, lying and trying to make what is good or neutral evil or bad while simultaneously trying to make the fickle believe their evil intentions are good. Now I'm hearing that republican attorney generals from several states are suing to stop the application of the Health Care bill in their states. It must be terrible to exist only for the purpose of repealing New Deal gains, Civil Rights gain and Human Rights gain. The GOP/RNC is some sick schick.

Author

Walt

Date

2010-03-22T17:08:57-06:00

ID

156870

Comment

I do think that you are perhaps unfairly sticking me with ownership of the imperfections of the current economic realities in the US -- as if my ideological worldview wants to accept some of the existing subsidies and just reject the new ones that I disagree with. Perhaps, but you’re the one who decided to try a little reductio ad absurdum on my argument that missed the mark. ;-) Rather than the existing government intervention stifling the cost-lowering, quality-improving, innovation-rewarding free market economic forces. I think this depends on the industry. Put simply, I don't think we'd be in this position if the health-insurance industry was an efficient value-add in the process of providing healthcare. In some cases, these companies appear less efficient than government and more invasive in terms of the life-or-death decisions they make in the interest of their profits. Certain types of industries derive their profits from growth, others from cost-savings. (Oversimplified, yes, but go with it a second.) It seems that the profits in health insurance are derived mostly from saving costs -- and too often that means not covering someone for some reason. (Sometimes it also means wellness programs, anti-smoking campaigns, etc.) Think about it this way -- the most effective way to run an ambulance service would be to hit people with the ambulance in the driveway of the hospital; that would both grow your business and maximize your profits. But that doesn't fit our values. When it comes to emergency services that we, as a society, deem mandatory, non-profits or municipal services are generally more efficient, as they aren't so focused on cutting costs that they cut services in search of profits. (A non-profit, on the other hand, can at least be pressured to be more efficient at providing an acceptable level of service within a budget with more of those dollars going to the actual service.) That said, it's also clear that for-profit companies create better products and offer better services than government; so, generally speaking, I wouldn't want to see medical care or medical products run by the government (although non-profits can often do a good job in this area, and many a member of the military swears by TriCare and the modern VA). [snip] ...health-cost sharing program. ... It is vastly cheaper for us, and provides all the coverage we need. Fortunately, our program was one of three that were granted exemptions from the new regulations contained within the HCR... (a.) I would argue, though, that this isn't innovation *within* the insurance industry; it sounds like innovation outside of the industry. But (b.) Perhaps it remains to be seen if something like this is workable within the HCR legislation? That is a major reduction in my economic freedom and choice, and that's a shame. Yeah, it's a shame, but is it a HUGE one? (I mean that for the purpose of discussion, not to insult you.) When weighed against the considerable good that this legislation could do for millions of people? Some hypotheticals...if your wife is making $200k in adjusted gross income, then a 2% surtax would be $4k; I'd imagine you could add her to your BCBS policy for less than that. Is your BCBS policy mandatory? (You mention it is "subtracted from your potential earnings" which makes it sound like you have no choice.) From my reading of HCR you could still have a Health Savings Account and a high-deductible plan for you and your wife, which might be a nice compromise; that would keep you from paying the surtax and might even be something you could use to pay bills from the health cost-sharing program through it? (Haven't researched it.)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-03-22T19:41:40-06:00

ID

156878

Comment

I personally can relate and I share the frustaration of what it is like to be cheated by by others in position of authority to cram their beliefs on what they think is best for the citizens of this county. It tends to make one defiant towards a pompous leadership that prefers to advance their own agenda even at the cost of alienating those who are given no say in the matter. I deeply empathize and share your frustration in being ignored by a handful who posses the power over the will of a vast portion of society. I say this as I live in an environment similar to yours in that I live in a place that is subjected to this same authoritarian, Stalinist form of rule. It seems almost criminal that one person or a handful of those in power can oppress such a large segment of society based on their sole belief that they know what is in the best interest of the individuals they serve. Doing so with little to no input by these individuals in determing their own fate. You see, I live in the state of Mississippi where we have a governor who continues to deny those who are less fortunate access to immediate relief with little or no impact on wealthier individuls in the future. The positive benefits far outweigh the potential drawback even though that potential drawback, if any would be miniscule in comparison to the proven positive and immediate relief it would provide to those in need as well stimulate the economy and benefit business as a whole. It sucks does it not Governor Barbour. Perhaps there is some legal implications that can be pursued on the part of the disadvantaged that make up such a large part of this. Many around the country are well aware of what is truly at the root of this unfortunate situation and it will not bode well on the ever so slight possibility, as described in your words, they you may consider a run to replace t;he present commie socialist who presently holds the highest office of the land. Good luck with your potential endeavor no matter how tentative you profess your ambition to be. Alass, keep in mind how important it is for a governor to at least carry their own state in a bid for the presidency.

Author

HooYoo2say

Date

2010-03-23T09:59:16-06:00

ID

156879

Comment

In the comical words of Lilly Tomlin in her role as a receptionist for a big healthcare insurance company, "Your health is our business not our concern." lol

Author

HooYoo2say

Date

2010-03-23T10:04:11-06:00

ID

156881

Comment

Haley Barbour finally officially let the cat out of the bag as to what the true agenda of this stand against healthcare reform was all about. It was a masked stance against the issue of abortion. Healthcare reform was merely the vehicle used to try to advance their anti-abortion agenda.

Author

HooYoo2say

Date

2010-03-23T10:17:36-06:00

ID

156882

Comment

One of the great things about being an American citizen is the fact that we have a great deal of freedom to exercise free will and dissent against issues that we feel passionately opposed to for one reason or another; we have options available to us that do not have to go along with majority practice or habit, to resolve problems. As a low income manager of a large household, the reality is that funds are simply not available for insurance coverage to solve health crisis situations resulting from accidents or years of living and eating and thinking in a self destructive (even if it is living out the Madison Avenue vision of the good life) manner. So, what option is available for such a family circumstance. For us, this option is to view God as our insurance, and seek healing remedies that are divine answers to our prayer tailored to the individual health imbalance condition with Holistic Healing Technology as our foundation of medical choice--which, remember is available for American citizens to choose. The bottom line is that no matter how much you have in a 401K to meet all the foreseeable health problems you may face, if the treatment that your allocated funds cover are ineffective and even exacerbate and accelerate the attrition of the ill condition, what good is being able to pay for your demise;...you know, like insurance that covered the hole that was sawed into my mother's head to remove a tumor that could be traced to the prescribed Dilantin--prescribed by the same therapeutic solution provider, which i wrote about in the Clarion Ledger back in the eighties. Humbly, I offer these whispers from my heart as i am moved by the sad images in my mind that never go away of the bowtie black stitches that made an oval ring on my mother's shaved skull. Be that reality as it were, cognizant of the fact that the more healthy is the citizenry--the lower the insurance premiums, we continue to pray that at least, since the bill is passed, we can ask that those tax dollars allocated for insurance coverage for our wellness be spent on treatment, remedies, and therapy that work to heal our populace. Doctor Daddy PS. It is the elderly who suffer the most in this situation, as their drug cost surpass their light and water bill, they should be availed a more viable choice. Medical Treatments Must Be Held Accountable!

Author

doctor daddy

Date

2010-03-23T10:27:53-06:00

ID

156885

Comment

My post at 9:39 am was in reference to Governor Barbours continued rejection of $56,000,000.00 to help provide for the needs of thousands of families affected by layoffs in this Great Recession that the Republcans contributed to in a major way under the Bush Administration's tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with spending comparable to the most liberal administrations in history. Not to mention the green light given the "Too Big to Fail" investment banking instutions to run amuck freely gambling with the secure monies from their commercial lending branch. The equity savings belonging to Main Street who continue to be left out in the cold.

Author

HooYoo2say

Date

2010-03-23T11:38:40-06:00

ID

156888

Comment

Walt, I heard Rush Limbaugh's comments about leaving the country if the health care bill passes. The thing that is so ignorant is his saying that he will move to "Costa Rica", a place where even a third grade kid knows that they have socialized health-care. Poor Rush. ...and to think that so many Americans look up to and worship him as if he is something other than a mean, hatefilled, backwards thinking racist. Barbour didn't let any "cat out of the bag". The Republican, Birther, Tea Party gangs had one mission in mind and that was to DEFEAT PRESIDENT OBAMA. My GM always talked about cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is a clear example of the practice. The Republican and Republicans in Democrat's clothing who are in congress know better. These folks have excellent health insurance and even if it runs out, many are wealthy and can pick up their own tabs. It is my understanding that Haley Barbour plans to file the law suite himself against the passing of health care reform if AG Hood refuses. Must MS always be in the race to the bottom of all piles of crap? It is bad enough that Haley is refusing to accept 51mil. for an extention of unemployment benefits. Can anyone who had lost their job seriously support not taking the money and can anyone who has lost their job and insurance fight against a system that will provide access to coverage? What kind of thinking is this? Just Asking?

Author

justjess

Date

2010-03-23T12:47:31-06:00

ID

156889

Comment

Well, this is somewhat surprising, but good news. And one might expect the support numbers to keep trending upward as Americans find out what is actually in the bill, and what is not. "Do the right thing and wait" has never seemed more apropos: Opinions Turn Favorable on Health Care Plan WASHINGTON — Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it. By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry." The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-03-23T13:15:27-06:00

ID

156890

Comment

Just noticed: In the new USA Today poll, Obama gets 46 percent excellent/good on health reform while 26 percent give congressional Republicans excellent/good. So, as reality sinks in (and people get the facts of the bill), will Republicans suddenly start trying to claim credit for the bill instead of calling it Stalinism!?! Do. Right. Thing. And. Wait.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-03-23T13:42:49-06:00

ID

156892

Comment

Now that this insurance business is out of the way, perhaps now we can focus on legislation that targets Medical Treatment Reform to ensure that the insured health care results are cost effective, justifiable and desirable (no more two thousand dollar toilet seats for our money please; or death as the predictable outcome of certain procedures that continue to be used dispite such a failure record thank you). Doctor Daddy

Author

doctor daddy

Date

2010-03-23T13:47:48-06:00

ID

156893

Comment

If you think health-care is expensive now just wait till it's government controlled! Thornton, what proof do you have that it will be government-controlled? I'd be against it if it were.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2010-03-23T13:56:44-06:00

ID

156894

Comment

That USA Today poll is consistent with other polls in that once people are explained what's really in it, it gets much positive numbers. In fact, there are some things that went into the effect the moment the bill was signed. From ABC News: For seniors who have burned through the front half of their Medicare prescription drug benefit this year they will get a $250 rebate to help them cover their drug costs, children with pre-existing conditions cannot be refused insurance, and adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to buy into high-risk insurance pools.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2010-03-23T14:20:29-06:00

ID

156895

Comment

Yes, and Barbour intends to sue to try to stop those things from happening. He is a partisan machine.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-03-23T14:34:44-06:00

ID

156896

Comment

Gallup today is showing the president's approval rating up today, too.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-03-23T14:39:13-06:00

ID

156897

Comment

So are the big health stocks...shouldn't investors be scared of Obama "going after" big health like he said he would? Or am I missing something? What do the investors know that the rest of the American public doesn't?

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-03-23T14:42:15-06:00

ID

156898

Comment

Doctor Daddy, one thing in this legislation that might appeal to you is that it closes the so-called donut hole for prescription drug coverage. So seniors should have an easier time affording prescription drugs. I can't wait to see the Republicans run on repealing that one. The legislation also establishes the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which can recommend cutting Medicare payments for treatments that are shown to be ineffective. It should give a boost to evidence-based medicine.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-03-23T14:43:19-06:00

ID

156900

Comment

So are the big health stocks...shouldn't investors be scared of Obama "going after" big health like he said he would? Or am I missing something? What do the investors know that the rest of the American public doesn't? About 14 months of uncertainty is over? A bill is signed? I think you generally see the market react to stability, and the healthcare sector as a whole has just seen a huge boon -- there's a whole new infrastructure for them getting paid. One interesting snapshot is the actual insurance companies -- as opposed to the healthcare sector as a whole.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-03-23T17:31:18-06:00

ID

156901

Comment

Well, Brian C Johnson, that "evidence based medical" intervention sounds great, yet I wish to be clear about not advocating a bag full of over the counter drugs (sometimes as many as thirty) that break patients down slowly (at first) like they did my mother with so called side effects that bring about a state of health that is far worse than what was being treated; you know like trading anxiety for renal insufficiency...just doesn't add up for me, particularly since the source of the deterioration and imbalance is not addressed and the problem goes deeper. Doctor Daddy

Author

doctor daddy

Date

2010-03-23T18:30:01-06:00

ID

156902

Comment

Those American citizens who can't afford the illfated drugs and the too expensive failed modern medical treatments have the right to employ herbology as an alternative(you know herbs instead of drugs); but the question is.....will the insurance reform coverage for medical therapy include Holistic Remedies that are viable options for ensuring an healthier populace? Doctor Daddy

Author

doctor daddy

Date

2010-03-23T18:44:14-06:00

ID

156904

Comment

I believe that this analysis on how health care reform reduces inequality explains much conservative opposition to the legislation. A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. ... The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level — $88,200 for a family of four people. This change may help to reverse some of the disastrous legacy of the Reagan years. Since 1980, median real household income has risen less than 15 percent. ... For most of the last three decades, tax rates for the wealthy have been falling, while their pretax pay has been rising rapidly. Real incomes at the 99.99th percentile have jumped more than 300 percent since 1980. At the 99th percentile — about $300,000 today — real pay has roughly doubled.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-03-23T20:58:43-06:00

ID

156905

Comment

Health care has been a very big issue eversince. And because of this, right-wingers and libertarians are protesting about the proposed health care reforms, even though fascist right is far more vocal as those of a libertarian stripe like to use reason and rationality over everything else, but they have a dubious advocate on their side. The Congressional Budget Office, or CBO is predicting the health care bill will send the government running for payday advances in quick time. They forecasted that there would be a surplus every year of George Bush's presidency and beyond. Aside from that, they also forecasted he would run only a $20 billion deficit at one point but it ended up to become a $160 billion deficit.

Author

JaniceB

Date

2010-03-23T22:36:15-06:00

ID

156908

Comment

Dr. D - I am with you that too many medications can be harmful. My mom had a low blood pressure episode and broke her nose, we think due to a bad combination of medications. I think medications really are a life saver for some people, and for some conditions. But all too often they are used indiscriminately without recourse to more difficult lifestyle changes such as meditation, stress-relief, and mostly plant-based diets all of which can have significant effects on long term health.

Author

Izzy

Date

2010-03-24T09:00:18-06:00

ID

156909

Comment

itodd, While I think you are right about the market as a whole reacting to some stability finally. I have to disagree about the individual health insurance providers seeing a "huge boon -- there's a whole new infrastructure for them getting paid." I think once people finally understand how this new law actually works it will become more cost efficient for individuals to pay the fine while they are healthy and wait until they have some condition that requires health insurance to pay the rising rates since the insurers can not turn anyone down. These short term gains wont be sustainable in my opinion and will most certainly lead to skyrocketing insurance rates and a bankrupted system. Plus, small businesses like mine with less than 50 employees who do offer at least some contribution to their employees health insurance, We pay 50% of the employees premium (which is a lot of money for us), have just lost the incentive to offer those benefits. If everyone has to buy their own Health Insurance and will be subsidized by the government if they make less than 4 X the poverty limit why should a business subsidize it for them? A 35% tax credit isn't going to do it when we can get a 100% discount for dropping the benefit altogether.

Author

WMartin

Date

2010-03-24T09:19:40-06:00

ID

156910

Comment

WMartin, your first point is speculation, and I disagree. Secondly, we are also a small business (fewer than 50 employees) and offer health insurance, and pay half, to our full-time employees. We love what's in this bill for us, including an immediate tax credit. We won't be required to offer insurance going forward because of our size, but we want to, and the government is helping make it easier to. I'm hoping we'll be able to offer it to part-time employees as all this plays out. As a small business owner, I just don't see your logic or agree with your naysaying on it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-03-24T09:24:18-06:00

ID

156912

Comment

You are right of course, it is my opinion and I stated it as just that. I just don't see people paying a higher premium when the fine is much cheaper. It's like if parking costs $10.00 but the ticket for parking illegally is $5.00. I'll give you a real ferinstance. We have an employee and he makes roughly $60k a year. The portion of his insurance premium we pay is a little over $4500.00 a year (BCBS) so he pays the same. His fine for not having health insurance could be as high as 2% of his adjusted gross income. Let's say its on the whole $60k for argument's sake. That's $1200.00. How many people do you believe will continue to pay the $4500.00 ($9000.00 if we drop the portion that we pay) when they know all they all they have to do is pay the fine while they are healthy and buy insurance IF they get sick? And what happens when the healthy people the insurance companies need paying in to offset the costs of the coverage they have to pay out don't pay in any more? They are instead paying fines to the IRS. I just don't see how this system will be sustainable in this form.

Author

WMartin

Date

2010-03-24T09:52:18-06:00

ID

156913

Comment

I have to disagree about the individual health insurance providers seeing a "huge boon -- there's a whole new infrastructure for them getting paid." Me too. I said healthcare sector, not health insurance providers. The other thing that I think is important to consider is opt in vs. opt out psychology. I think you're going to find that the meme sticks that we're "required" to carry health insurance (even thought it's only a fine, and a small one for younger people making less money) and you'll find that the norms of the society move in the direction of you having insurance -- in fact, I think you'll find that by and large people in the U.S. *want* insurance and many of them jump through hoops to get it regardless of the logic. And...if studies show that people are not getting health insurance and paying the fine instead -- and the assessment is that the entire system will go bankrupt -- then I have a funny feeling that Congress will raise the fines.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-03-24T09:57:49-06:00

ID

156914

Comment

The sad part is that we're going back and forth on the possible economic consequences of the bill...because nobody really knows for sure how people will respond to the new artificial, government-enforced incentives and disincentives. This uncertainty is often the case when an industry or economic sector is subject to central planning, because government can't actually control the costs involved, it can only fix prices. And when prices don't match the costs, bad things happen. I can't wait for the responses about "out of control greed" and "unconscionable profit margins".

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-03-24T10:28:04-06:00

ID

156915

Comment

I rather have the public option. Maybe that will cut out the mandatory purchase of insurance.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2010-03-24T10:38:06-06:00

ID

156916

Comment

... I have a funny feeling that Congress will raise the fines. I get the same feeling although I don't find the prospect of more and higher taxes very funny.

Author

WMartin

Date

2010-03-24T11:00:18-06:00

ID

156917

Comment

The sad part is that we're going back and forth on the possible economic consequences...This uncertainty is often the case when an industry or economic sector is subject to central planning, because government can't actually control the costs involved, it can only fix prices. Ok...which one is this? Slippery slope or just more absurd reductio? :-P Seriously...where is the central planning in this bill? HCR is regulation of the insurance industry, in an effort that takes us closer to the Japanese system of universal health insurance coverage, but without the controls on the provider side of things. This bill -- in broad strokes -- is defining the rules for participation in a market -- health insurance -- much the same as there is groundwork for building and selling cars or planes or offering financial instruments. The bulk of this reform doesn't address costs within healthcare directly. (obviously it's a big bill and there are some programs that are looking at costs, including pilot programs, community clinics, etc, but that's not its primary purpose.) But there's no central planning, iron curtain, Hammer and Sickle price control b.s. in the bill that I'm aware of. (Man this slope is tough to grip with your heels...) The closest I think we could get in the U.S. to a "central" system like that would be either a public option or a Medicare buy-in for all...which, frankly, would still be insurance reform, not cost controls, albeit with more centralized negotiating power that would likely affect pricing in the healthcare provider market. We don't have that (yet?) because insurance companies are being given the opportunity to make it happen in the private sector. We'll see if they can pull it off.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-03-24T11:43:55-06:00

ID

156918

Comment

I get the same feeling although I don't find the prospect of more and higher taxes very funny. Then get an insurance policy. After all that provides another benefit -- health insurance!

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-03-24T11:45:17-06:00

ID

156920

Comment

In our form of Democracy we can hold opinions and political positions that cross party lines; one can be against abortion and against manditory insurance coverage, while at the same in favor of receiving federal funding of unemployment and efforts taken on behalf of ...lets say the poor; which means that we can agree and/or disagree with the leadership in power at any given time. What keeps us healthy is developing a relationship with legislation and rules of law that allow us to accept enactments that hopefully represent the interest of the whole body politic and yet find a way to deal with the consequences of implementation of disagreeable binding law, as it affects us individually. We can only hope and pray that our interest is represented in decisions and efforts purportedly taken on our behalf by our chosen leaders, since we are not "allowed" to vote directly on such issues as this so called health reform, or whether we can receive some of that $56,000,000 that our Govenor rejected. This is why we feel oblidged to pray that monopolistic practices and greedy individuals preying upon the lives of those who are not fortunate or rich enough to be represented by lobby are controlled by our Federal Government and censored by our Courts, which in this case means that such a social reform in the name of health care would not be construed and abused to subsedize seven figure bank accounts at the expense of U.S. citizenry whose poverty and aggravated demise fuels said wealth building growth at the rate of their (conflict of interest related) attrition. Doctor Daddy

Author

doctor daddy

Date

2010-03-25T09:03:19-06:00

ID

156926

Comment

Mississippians will not have to worry about health care reform for a very long time. After Haley Barbour gave AG Hood until noon yesterday to file suite against the Fed Gov., you can rest assured that he will follow through with his plan to hire private republican attorneys. There are nine AGs around the country who have already filed their cases. I'm sure Haley is having a fit that he could not be front row and center with the initial group. The governor is forever screaming "broke" so how does it become such an easy task to employ private lawyers? It is unfair to pass this cost on to taxpayers. This man who has cut education and everything else that makes sense is again running to keep MS on the tail end of the donkey. AG Jim Hood had the good sense and the legal intelligence to say to the gov. that it will take time to go through the bill and that a dicision to file or not file will not be made on political motives. He deserves praise for his position and also for letting the gov. know that HE (gov) can not file the case himself. This was Barbour's initial threat.

Author

justjess

Date

2010-03-26T09:19:20-06:00

ID

156932

Comment

Jess, did you see the YouTube video of the governor of Washington being upset at their AG for being a part of the lawsuit? I wish Democratic governors with AGs planning to sue would do the same.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2010-03-26T10:23:20-06:00

ID

156937

Comment

Thanks golden eagle. I found the link on YouTube. Thanks! She really laid it on the line,especially with her question of, "Who does he represent? Not the ........."

Author

justjess

Date

2010-03-26T14:00:44-06:00

ID

157209

Comment

I hope they are prepared to absorb the massive legal cost when they lose this suit and have to pay for the defendants legal fees incurred. lol

Author

HooYoo2say

Date

2010-04-13T14:23:58-06:00

ID

157210

Comment

Dear Governor Barbour: Your filing suit against this legislation does not mean "diddly". Especially coming from a fat redneck Southern Republican Governor. Your words not mine.

Author

HooYoo2say

Date

2010-04-13T14:27:35-06:00