Health Care and Waxman-Markey
*UPDATED*
President Obama admitted during the press conference yesterday that his campaign promise of if you love your doctor and your current insurance, you'll be able to keep it, really isn't all that accurate. ABC Blog.
Among other things that are crappy about this plan, Union Workers would be exempt from paying taxes on their health care benefits. Yeah. That sounds fair. This stuff just makes me so mad. I dispise how this administration is all about paying back favors to the Unions to the deteriment of the country. GM, Chrysler, now health care. Everyone got all upset because they thought Cheney was favoring Halliburton. Where is the outrage over the quid pro quo for the Unions?
And, the new plan is looking like it's going to force those that can afford it, to pay for it themselves. So if you make X amount of dollars, the Fed thinks you can afford your own health care, and it will be a federal mandate that you purchase health care, just like car insurance. Forget the fact that you're a 25 year old, single male who doesn't want it. You'll have to pay for it. Grits for Breakfast has a point about how individual mandates for car insurance criminalize poverty and do not help impoverished individuals get coverage.
Point of note ... in the comments at Grits ... someone goes on about how great USAA is and how that's a government institution and look, there's proof that the government runs something well. ERRRR. WRONG! It's a private company, run by retired military people, mostly.
Read this Op-Ed in the New York Times. President Obama's (I think it's actually Baucus' plan) plan got terrible reviews from the CBO. There's another plan out there, Wyden-Bennet, and it was given good reviews by the CBO and is revenue neutral. But they refuse to even talk about it.
His points are some of the most valid I've read ... you can't get something for nothing, including health care. And health care is not worth bankrupting the country over.
Another thing to watch ... and everyone who pays an electric bill needs to pay attention to this ... Nancy Pelosi is bringing Waxman-Markey (Cap and Trade) to the floor for a vote on Friday. There is conflicting information on how much this bill will costs individuals. Media Matters says $170 a year, per household. The Heritage Foundation says: $1,870 per year, per household. Having looked at both, I'd say Heritage is closer to correct because it takes into account overall drop in the economy / GDP and loss of jobs. More info on the cost disparity from the Financial Times. Which states that people that live in fossil fuel heavy states may end up paying more than those that live in, say Rhode Island.
But beyond what it would cost individuals ... what will it cost places like Houston, Oklahoma, Lousianna? Oil dependant states? What will it do to jobs? With unemployment about to break 10% nationwide, is it really a good idea to pass legislation that will damage even more jobs? Is this bill really that important?
President Obama admitted during the press conference yesterday that his campaign promise of if you love your doctor and your current insurance, you'll be able to keep it, really isn't all that accurate. ABC Blog.
But today the president clarified that promise. It seems he wasn’t saying “no one” will take away any American’s health insurance – he was saying the government wouldn’t.
Which is not to say that the government wouldn’t create a situation where such a thing would happen.
Among other things that are crappy about this plan, Union Workers would be exempt from paying taxes on their health care benefits. Yeah. That sounds fair. This stuff just makes me so mad. I dispise how this administration is all about paying back favors to the Unions to the deteriment of the country. GM, Chrysler, now health care. Everyone got all upset because they thought Cheney was favoring Halliburton. Where is the outrage over the quid pro quo for the Unions?
And, the new plan is looking like it's going to force those that can afford it, to pay for it themselves. So if you make X amount of dollars, the Fed thinks you can afford your own health care, and it will be a federal mandate that you purchase health care, just like car insurance. Forget the fact that you're a 25 year old, single male who doesn't want it. You'll have to pay for it. Grits for Breakfast has a point about how individual mandates for car insurance criminalize poverty and do not help impoverished individuals get coverage.
Point of note ... in the comments at Grits ... someone goes on about how great USAA is and how that's a government institution and look, there's proof that the government runs something well. ERRRR. WRONG! It's a private company, run by retired military people, mostly.
Read this Op-Ed in the New York Times. President Obama's (I think it's actually Baucus' plan) plan got terrible reviews from the CBO. There's another plan out there, Wyden-Bennet, and it was given good reviews by the CBO and is revenue neutral. But they refuse to even talk about it.
His points are some of the most valid I've read ... you can't get something for nothing, including health care. And health care is not worth bankrupting the country over.
Another thing to watch ... and everyone who pays an electric bill needs to pay attention to this ... Nancy Pelosi is bringing Waxman-Markey (Cap and Trade) to the floor for a vote on Friday. There is conflicting information on how much this bill will costs individuals. Media Matters says $170 a year, per household. The Heritage Foundation says: $1,870 per year, per household. Having looked at both, I'd say Heritage is closer to correct because it takes into account overall drop in the economy / GDP and loss of jobs. More info on the cost disparity from the Financial Times. Which states that people that live in fossil fuel heavy states may end up paying more than those that live in, say Rhode Island.
But beyond what it would cost individuals ... what will it cost places like Houston, Oklahoma, Lousianna? Oil dependant states? What will it do to jobs? With unemployment about to break 10% nationwide, is it really a good idea to pass legislation that will damage even more jobs? Is this bill really that important?
Comments