There are many key features that people MUST pay attention to when it comes to the most resent round of “Health Care Reform.” It seems that with any government program people need to be careful for what they wish for, they might just get exactly that.

If you go to page 16 of the Health Care Reform bill H.R. 3200 you will find this:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—
Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term “grandfathered health insurance coverage” means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

This means that you can keep the coverage you already have “grandfathered health insurance coverage”, so long as the policy was started before the year the bill becomes law. In and of itself, this doesn’t sound so bad. Then you read the next part.

Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

This means that the insurance issuer (your insurance company) CAN NOT add any individual to the plan after the first day of the year the bill becomes law. There is a provision that will allow you to add dependents, but that’s it.

To sum this up, it means that your current private health insurance plan will become illegal. The existing insurance companies would be able to keep running, but only with the people that they already have in their current plans. Future plans would have to be based on government guidelines.

Once the bill becomes law if you switch employers or start your own business, you WILL NOT be able to purchase the same health insurance, as it will be illegal for insurers to issue new policies with the same attributes. The insurance policies with mandated government specified premiums and deductibles will be the only insurance options available.

This is like telling a grocery store chain that they cannot purchase any new inventory (it will be illegal), they just have to sell what they have currently in stock. Then claim that it is not illegal to own and operate a grocery store, you just can't purchase any new stock. How is the grocery store supposed to stay in business? When later allowed to purchase new inventory, that stock will be determined by the government. This is exactly how the H.R. 3200 proposes private health care insurance is supposed to function.

Up until now, I figured congress would regulate the private industry into failure. But here in this bill they make private insurance illegal. To make it all the more insulting this provision is under the section “PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.” All of this is right on page 16, take a look…

PDF file: H.R. 3200 downloaded from the Thomas.gov website

This is just the beginning though. Remember how Obama said that we have to reform health care because it's killing our economy? You should take a look at the report from the non partisan Congressional Budget Office report.

■ Currently, a significant share of the population moves in and out of insurance
coverage during a year, which complicates efforts to provide effective
prevention and wellness services. As discussed later, though, those services
are less broadly effective at reducing health care spending than might be
expected, and in any event, expansion proposals would not eliminate all of the
churning that makes it harder to maintain continuity of care.

■ Most expansions of insurance coverage that are under consideration would
leave a moderate number of people uninsured, in part because some people
would be ineligible for subsidies or would choose not to buy insurance even
with large subsidies. Therefore, any current problems arising from the lack of
insurance could be reduced but not eliminated.

It also bears emphasizing that if a reform package achieved “budget neutrality”
during its first 10 years, budgetary savings in the long run would not be
guaranteed—even if the package included initial steps toward transforming the
delivery and financing of health care that would gain momentum over time.
Different reform plans would have different effects, of course, but two general
phenomena could make the long-run budgetary impact less favorable than the
short-run impact:

■ First, an expansion of insurance coverage would be phased in over time to
allow for the creation of new administrative structures such as insurance
exchanges. As a result, the cost of an expansion during the 2010–2019 period
could be a poor indicator of its ultimate cost.

■ Second, savings generated by policy actions outside of the health care system
would probably not grow as fast as health care spending. Such would be the
case for revenues stemming from the Administration’s proposal to limit the
tax rate applied to itemized deductions and from proposals to tax sugar-sweetened
soda or alcohol, for example.

Some policy options under consideration would yield savings that grew in tandem
with health care spending—reducing the level of federal spending on health care
but not affecting the measured rate of spending growth after the first few years.
For example, the largest savings proposed in the President’s budget would arise
from a decrease in payments to private health insurance plans operating under the
Medicare Advantage program. If enacted, that change would permanently lower
the level of Medicare spending, but it would probably not offset a noticeably
larger share of the cost of an expansion of insurance coverage in the second
10 years than in the first.

Here is a copy of the CBO report:

PDF file: 06-16-HealthReformAndFederalBudget from the CBO website

There is nothing in the proposed bill that would significantly decrease the number of uninsured, or save money in the long run. What, then, is the purpose of this bill?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/obama-wants-health-reform-week/

Despite objections from conservative and moderate Democrats, prospects for House action along the president's timetable are better than in the Senate.

There, majority Democrats are readying legislation, to be introduced as early as Tuesday, that would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

The measure would spend billions of dollars subsidizing lower income individuals and families who cannot afford coverage, in an attempt to cut dramatically into the ranks of the uninsured.

To comply with another presidential priority, it would rely on cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to begin slowing the rate of growth in health care spending overall.

The measure is expected to impose a fee equal to 8 percent of a worker's salary on large companies that fail to offer insurance or do not subsidize it at a high enough rate.

Individuals also would have to pay a penalty if they refused to purchase affordable insurance.

Officials announced last week that the measure would include an income tax surcharge on the wealthy, estimated to raise more than $500 billion over the next decade.

I thought that the government was going to provide competition for private insurance companies? What is this about imposing regulations which will drive up health insurance premiums? Remember Obama said that he is open to the idea of taxing health insurance premiums.

There, majority Democrats are readying legislation, to be introduced as early as Tuesday, that would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

The devil is in the details. The legislation states that it will prohibit denying coverage or charging higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. This means that people WITHOUT pre-existing medical conditions will be susceptible to premium increases. Which means that premiums will go up. Rates will have to go up once the insurance companies are FORCED to insure people with such high risk factors. Remember, auto insurance companies and property insurance companies can refuse to insure based on risk assessments. This isn't because they are greedy, this is because they are a business, in business to make money, not loose it.

Consider this; you insure your house and then purposely burn it down the next day. This would be considered insurance fraud. You would go to jail for burning your own house down to collect money. The government is forcing insurance companies to insure human beings without assessing the possibility that the insured may never contribute towards the policy premium. The insurance company must ignore all risk factors. How is this going to help make health care more affordable?

How is imposing cuts in Medicare, and Medicaid supposed to slow the rate of growth in health care spending? Did the "stimulus bill" not have 460 BILLION dollars allocated for health care? Remember as Obama said the 460 Billion is just a start. These "cuts" are complete nonsense.

The government is going to impose a fine on individuals if they refuse to purchase "affordable" insurance. How exactly do you define "affordable"? How do you determine what is affordable for each and every individual?

Did any democrat voter think that they were going to pay a penalty for NOT buying insurance?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Now we know who to vote out in 2010! Are you ready for an increase of up to 3000.00 dollars a year for your power bill?

This is not what people think it is. check out the link bellow.

http://winduprubberfinger.com/blog1.php/2009/03/04/cap-and-trade-your-life-away

More good news coming out of China!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8120835.stm

The report from the People's Bank of China (PBOC) said a "super-sovereign" currency should take its place.

Central bank chief Zhou Xiaochuan has loudly led calls for the dollar to be replaced during the financial crisis.

"An international monetary system dominated by a single sovereign currency has intensified the concentration of risk and the spread of the crisis," the Chinese central bank said.

The dollar fell after the report was released. The US currency dropped 1% against the euro to $1.4088, and declined 0.8% versus the British pound to $1.6848.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently joined Mr Zhou in saying it was time to consider an alternative benchmark currency for international debt.

This is much less a political issue, and an issue of survival for the United States. Our current stance on spending is not going to help with this issue.

The United States dollar has long been the majority currency of Global trade. The dollar is used as the reserve currency by a majority of the worlds governments. Because of this the Dollar is the "unit of world trade" items traded globally are priced in dollars. If the United States is in a position where its debt exceeds what the country can produce or pay out, then the United States becomes insolvent, and with it all of the currency which is gauged on the value of the dollar. China is making a valid point.

China is voicing concern that the U.S. dollar might fall too low, and offset the values of currency worldwide. What should the United States do to address this issue? What can the United States do to decrease its deficit?

I can't say that I have the answer, but I know that the answer doesn't involve borrowing more money. The debt currently being racked up by the U.S.is unimaginable. There is no logical reason for this acquisition of debt. There also is no historical justification to make such large spending increases - with the hope of buying our way out of a recession.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Today is a sad day, as we say goodbye to Rabbit Ears. For nearly 100 years analogue television was the standard. Now analogue is considered outdated.

I remember when that was the only way to get television. There was always that kid down the street whose parents had cable. Of course that was back when we had those old slider boxes.

The first TV I had in my bedroom was one I found in a neighbors trash. The neighbor had thrown it away because it had no picture. I checked it out. There was sound, but no picture, so I checked the adjustments. I found that someone had turned the brightness all the way down. There was nothing wrong with the TV at all. So that became my first TV. Of course it was analogue, it was also black and white. It was a TV though, and I could play Nintendo on it, so that was all that mattered.

Up until about one year ago I was watching TV using rabbit ears. My wife and I didn’t watch enough TV to warrant the cost of cable, or satellite TV, so rabbit ears it was. As a matter of fact I recorded episodes of “House” using my old VCR. BigLots was the only place that had VHS tapes!

I think the impact of the switch will be minimal, because of the number of people now using cable or satellite TV. Any of the TV services, which require a converter box, will see no change. So we’ll just have to see what chaos ensues.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.