The health insurance reform bill should be opposed on many grounds. The most obvious to those of us who put a priority on liberty is that it violates our rights: our right to not buy insurance, our right to buy whatever insurance products we want, our right to not offer certain benefits as employers, and more.
Another big problem, if you're pro-life, is that the bill pays for abortions. The Democrats have been saying all along they would not pass a bill that pays for abortions, but they lied. This bill does precisly that, because it pays for insurance coverage that pays for abortions. There's no wiggling out of this lie.
Speaking of big lies, the Democrats have been saying their health insurance reform would cut the deficit. Obama said he wouldn't vote for it unless it did. But it only cuts the deficit because they cut out the Medicare "doctor fix" ... which they are going to pass separately later. So no, this bill -- combined with the portion they cut out of the bill, which they say they will pass this summer -- increases the deficit.
Of course, Democrats will say "we were talking about THIS bill, not the separate 'doctor fix' bill," but letting them get away with that argument would allow any Congress to make any major legislation reduce the deficit: just cut out the parts that increase the deficit, pass them separately, and surprise! You saved money!
Democrats who vote for this because it reduces the deficit are lying ... unless they plan to vote against the "doctor fix." But we know that the Democratic leadership and Obama plan to support it, so at the very least, we know they are lying about deficit cuts.
For most people, though, the biggest problem is that it simply doesn't do anything good for most Americans, becase costs don't come down. The CBO says premiums stay essentially static, with or without this bill. Literally, the Democrats have been touting a bill to address the high cost of health insurance, without actually reducing the cost of that insurance.
Anyone who votes for this bill is voting for deficit increases, tax increases, and a complete absence of actual cost-cutting.
There's a lot more that can and has and should be said about this bill, but these are the primary reasons why the Democrats are killing themselves in the elections this November.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at March 20, 2010 09:47 AM | Email ThisThe best aspect of it is that it is funded in part by an Asset Tax on dividend and interest income for Medicare. If anything could be changed about it, I would ask they increase the asset taxes.
Posted by: John Bailo on March 20, 2010 09:53 AMI do vote yes on health care! I vote No, however, on this particular health INSURANCE bill.
This bill is significantly reasonable
False. I pointed out many ways in which it is not reasonable: violates our liberty, doesn't cut costs, increases the deficits, funds abortion, cuts health care benefits.
and much needed for fairness in health care.
False. In fact, it does not increase health care "fairness" for the overwhelming majority of Americans, and to the extent it does, all of those things could be done separately from this bill, without unconstitutional and immoral mandates, without raising the deficit, without cutting health care benefits, and so on.
The best aspect of it is that it is funded in part by an Asset Tax on dividend and interest income for Medicare.
It's telling that you think the "best aspect" of the bill is not what it does for the health care of people, but what it TAKES AWAY from people.
We should clean up that mess before even considering another major social program, none of which have worked over the long term.
Point two, the libs continually harp about how great a single payer system would be, where everyone receives "free" insurance. I suggest they look at our neighbors to the north.It's projected 70% of British Columbia's revenue will go toward their healthcare system by 2017. The time between GP referral and seeing a specialist has gone from 6 weeks in 1995 to 14 weeks today.
It's time for the GOP to come out with a viable plan that makes sense to the american people. They can't assume that the negative standing of the dems means the people like what the repubs.are selling. The reason the GOP is out of power is they lost their bearings four years ago.
Posted by: ttown on March 20, 2010 10:41 AMThis is what makes the bill something that Republicans can support as it fairly balances tax reform (Asset Tax) with increasing health care for many Americans (some of whom will be future Republicans).
Instead of nay saying, Republicans should be fighting for more Asset Taxes, here in WA, and in WA, DC.
Wow. Even if that ridiculous statement were true, you'd be arguing for the bill because it's got raisins in it. NOTHING you've said is an argument actually FOR the bill: you'd have to argue for the provisions that we oppose, not for provisions you think we should support.
Fine, you think that tax "reform" is a raisin ... but the individual mandates, lack of cost cutting, and deficit increases are green goo. We won't eat the green goo just to get the raisins.
If you can't understand that then you really have a significant deficiency in your ability to think.
This assumes that all wealthy people horde wealth, and that there is only a finite amount of wealth.
Besides, it's not my money, they didn't steal it from me, and them having their wealth doesn't prevent me from getting my own, so why do I care how much they have?
Posted by: Mike H on March 20, 2010 11:22 AMNo, you're not. There's no decreased sales or income taxes in the health insurance bill, or reconciliation bill, which is what you are arguing for. Please try to be honest.
This will put more money into the hands of productive business people and employees.
No, because the cost of the asset tax would be passed on to everyone else.
Also, because an asset tax would eliminate the remaining Fourth Amendment's protection of our privacy over our financial papers, it is simply unacceptable to actual conservatives.
George Soros comes to mind.
Curious man. He's made a good deal of money from recognizing government fiscal and monetary problems. It's .. rather curious that he's become so active in encouraging more of the same.
Posted by: Dishman on March 20, 2010 11:38 AMWhy do you hate the rich? How is them being rich adversely hurting you? How are they preventing you from becoming rich? Personally, I've never gotten a job from a poor person before. Are you able to pay me a living wage? Are you able to pay me anything?
If not, quit being bitter about what others have, and work to make your own wealth. No one is stopping you... except the government and the hurdles they put in place.
And yourself.
Posted by: Mike H on March 20, 2010 11:41 AMWhat a classic Marxist--cares less about the underdog and more about punishing the successful. Kind of like the difference between wanting the Red Sox to win and just wanting the Yankees to fail. The misanthropy of the latter is what defines Marxists, despite their claimed solidarity with the lower classes. It's not about helping the poor, it's about hurting the rich.
If Crusaders reach critical mass, we will find ourselves like Greece, with Crusaders in the streets asserting claim to more money than they ever earned, and that in any case does not exist in such quantities.
Pudge, I agree with you, but I think sounding the alarm about how this doesn't represent cost savings falls on deaf ears. Most on the Left, and many in the center, never really cared about cost savings. This, to them, was about "justice." If the money is out there, they reason, and someone is sick, all measures should be taken to get that money and use it for "good."
Predictably, liberals fail to recognize that nothing "good" can start by stealing money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't, or by writing this theft into law to make it "not theft."
But this blindness, or willful ignorance, is a prerequisite of liberalism. Also characteristic is a belief in the zero-sum (finite pie) economic fallacy, and in the superstitious idea that wealth is essentially ownerless, gotten only through pure luck but never due to blood, sweat and tears. These superstitions probably represent some kind of cognitive enabling device to justify theft in the liberal mind: if wealth is both ownerless and randomly "distributed," it is the next logical step to say it is morally permissible to steal it from its owners.
Posted by: gulliver on March 20, 2010 11:51 AMSeriously... bitterness, envy, and covetousness of what others have never got anyone anywhere. It just makes you an unpleasant jerk to be around.
And besides, who says the boss in your socialist government won't be driving a Lexus while you drive a Honda?
And what's wrong with Hondas anyways? I drive a 12 year old 2-door Explorer, and have no desire to buy a Lexus even if I had the money.
Posted by: Mike H on March 20, 2010 11:55 AMIn this country we have freedom. You hate that. Most of the country doesn't hate that. Get used to it.
If you want liberty, you need to make sure others have the liberty to not save you when you screw up.
No dice... just because you don't have insurance doesn't mean you aren't off the hook for the money you owe. That's the risk one takes when they choose not to have insurance. If you choose to not have insurance (not the same as not being able to afford it), then you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences when such a scenario arises.
Posted by: Mike H on March 20, 2010 01:36 PMThis bill will not stand, for one reason or another.
Posted by: ducttape2 on March 20, 2010 01:47 PMActually the individual taxpayer should have that benefit, that's what you pay taxes for. Advocate mass transit, better cars, safer drivers and roads. Dependents OTOH are optional and should not be covered because it's not fair that others should have to pay for your lifestyle choice hence a mandate for them. Really if birth certs were quota auctioned, the number of dependents liable for catastrophe would decrease. The individual mandate is clearly unlawful in a free society and will result in the activation of the Selective Service System with many sent to Georgia to fight Russia...the real reason states will appear to fight the mandate...LOL you blue collar white honky whippersnappers.
Posted by: Don Swanson on March 20, 2010 02:15 PMFalse. Indeed, that's not only a logically ridiculous assertion, but it's morally bankrupt. You're saying I lose my right, if other people -- against my will -- pass some law taking away someone else's right. It's nonsense.
Further, even if it weren't such nonsense, what you're saying is a lie: you don't need insurance to pay for such services. We can force you to pay for the amublance service, or, like many other things, we can just make the government pay for it.
The First, Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution -- not to mention the Declaration of Independence -- say that I don't have to buy health insurance I don't want to buy. In typical leftist fashion, you simply DO NOT CARE. You don't care about rights, you only care about what YOU want for yourself and yoru agenda. You're selfish and greedy, just like Crusader.
ducttape: the insidiousness of the federal government is that the only way to make that fly is to not pay your income taxes, which ... doesn't really work out too well for you.
I understand that we will have the "choice" of plans. I am not certain if this will appear as a separate line item on the tax bill, but if that is the case I can see a direct effort by a significant % of the population quickly overloading the system. Kindof a reverse cloward & piven.
I suspect such action only after multiple attempts to unwind the law in the courts.
Posted by: ducttape2 on March 20, 2010 03:05 PMI understand that we will have the "choice" of plans. I am not certain if this will appear as a separate line item on the tax bill, but if that is the case I can see a direct effort by a significant % of the population quickly overloading the system. Kindof a reverse cloward & piven.
I suspect such action only after multiple attempts to unwind the law in the courts.
Posted by: ducttape2 on March 20, 2010 03:06 PMTo whit:
"I'm glad I'm old.
America as I knew it in my youth is over now, just a shell of it's former self. The new entitlement generation can feed on the carcass of what was built by their betters, because their fathers and grandfathers were actually willing to work and fight for freedoms they will now never enjoy.
It's really sad because this used to be something worth defending. America is circling the drain now. Brought down not by an enemy outside, but by the decay within."
Posted by: G Jiggy on March 20, 2010 03:08 PMHave a pulse? Pay up.
Let me count the ways this is unconstitional.
Posted by: Andy on March 20, 2010 03:16 PMYou are so full of crap - I challenge you to prove it. It's clowns like you are misinformed and epitomize the nanny state. You sound like you are an economic retard. Tell us you are all about social justice with your talking points.
What you fail to realize is that the more the wealthy get soaked, the more the economy will suffer and the higher unemployment will be. I prefer a fair tax myself, but DC is too fucked up to ever pass it. Sad but true...
The Democratics will reap major casualties in November. They sure as hell ask for it with their aristocratic and brazen actions. Signs are that they will go ahead and walk over the cliff and believe they can transform their social justice with the Western European model of a failed economy. I loathe Pelosi, Obama and Reid- the three stooges.
Posted by: KDS on March 20, 2010 05:51 PMThen that sounds like a perfect place for Crusader to go.
Posted by: Mike H on March 20, 2010 07:52 PMRemember: The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is indifference. Without support Crusader will wither. Don't give Crusader the time of day.
Posted by: bob in bellevue on March 20, 2010 08:48 PMHe's may be just a leak. But he's out little leak . . . God love 'im.
Posted by: G Jiggy on March 20, 2010 09:07 PM
As a businessman, putting more money into the Health Care industry is a great investment. Not just covering more people, but providing more good jobs in the business and management of health care. More jobs for programmers, project managers, scientists, researchers in cutting edge technologies.
Plus it provides basic "people work" jobs like nursing and physical therapists that tend to be more pleasant than janitorial or housekeeper services.
I'm licking my teeth dreaming of all the opportunities to enter and serve this fantastic 21st century market and use the spirit of Capitalism to heal and help people under the Obama Plan.
All Capitalists should be seeking new funds, revenues, markets opportunities in the same way that Ross Perot built EDS from a solitary contract on Medicare/Medicaid billing systems via Obama Care.
Go Capitalism!
False.
and longer life expectancies too
Not relevant. Larger heterogenous countries often have lower average life expectancies. America is #2 in life expectancy in countries with populations over 100m (11 nations, losing out only to Japan, which is a much more homogenous population than we do).
Cool!
If I trash his Lexus and his wife's Mercedes, does my Honda get even nicer? Just asking. I'm new to all this.
Posted by: davmicro on March 20, 2010 11:31 PMPerhaps if you actually tried getting out of this country for a bit. Go visit France..or better yet, like me, live there for two years. Then judge for yourself.
"Not relevant. Larger heterogenous countries often have lower average life expectancies. America is #2 in life expectancy in countries with populations over 100m (11 nations, losing out only to Japan, which is a much more homogenous population than we do)."
Come on..thats BS. You're picking the $100M cutoff out of thin air to elminate all the European nations.
Fact is, our for-profit health insurance industry, coupled with a fee-for-service healthcare system is driving us into bankruptcy. When my insurance company is OBLIGATED to maximize shareholder profits by denying medical care, then we have a serious problem. Healthcare is NOT like your standard "consumer" commodities. When you're seriously sick, you don't have a "choice" to consume, or not consume, depending on price, anymore than you have a "choice" to breath, or drink water.
Posted by: Proteus on March 21, 2010 12:02 AMLOL! Statistical wankery just comes naturally to you, doesn't it?
Let's re-state this in a more informative manner:
Of the 11 nations with populations greater than 100M, the US has longer life expectancy than China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Russia, and Mexico.
Now that's a record to be proud of!
"...these are the primary reasons why the Democrats are killing themselves in the elections this November."
For those of you who trend and support Democrats, I beg of you to not categorize the author of this post a 2nd rate propagandist masquerading as a concern troll.
No one has been more consistent over the years with their concern of Democratic candidates and their electoral viability than our pudge.
Given that the passing of the HCR bills by the Democratic congress and their being signed in to law by a Democratic president will most assuredly lead to a return of Republican majorities on the pledge of repealing this socialist, death panel bringing, freedom killing, deficit exploding law, one would think that Republicans such as pudge would applaud the stupidity of their political opponents 8 months away from an election.
But pudge is not a 2nd rate propagandist masquerading as a concern troll. He is truly concerned that Republicans will sweep the elections in November because of the plainly duplicitous actions of the Democratic congress.
Democrats would do well to listen to pudge, Michael Steele, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner when these people warn them of passing legislation they themselves oppose for reasons of Democratic electoral viability. These people always speak the truth and have never been known for bending the truth for their own reasons.
How the Democrats were able to win elections without following their advice is one the true mysteries of our time.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 21, 2010 09:08 AM
But I obviously don't do that at all: I DO want the Democrats to lose.
Again, I say this because you keep misusing the phrase. I realize that you learn by just picking things up on HA and dKos and not really understanding them -- both your word use and your politics -- but try to do better and learn how to use your words and phrases properly. It aids in communication for all involved.
Proteus: Both Finland and France have significantly HIGHER standards of living than the US
False. You can keep asserting it, but it's false.
Here's a hint: when you make an assertion without any evidence to back it up, and someone challenges you on it, that is your opportunity to provide your evidence. You have not done so, which tells us you don't have any such evidence.
liar: Let's re-state this in a more informative manner:
You didn't do so. The (obvious) point is that large heterogenous populations are going to have much larger groups of people who live much differently. For example, as Mike H pointed out, we have a ton of people who live healthily ... and a ton of people who don't. We have a lot of people who live in gated communities, and a lot of people who are in violent gangs. We have a lot of people who drive the speed limit, and a lot of people who skydive. We are probably the most diverse nation in the world, and with that brings large differences in everything about us, including life expectancy.
It is simply not possible for us to be near the top in life expectancy, given our diversity.
Given our much higher diversity and greater freedom, it's actually very positive that our life expectancy is only one year behind Finland's, and 1.5 years behind France.
So, we spend almost 3X as much as Finland per person and 2X as much as France, and yet, our average average life expectancy only lags by a year or two. Woot!
We have a lot of people who live in gated communities, and a lot of people who are in violent gangs. We have a lot of people who drive the speed limit, and a lot of people who skydive.
Really... What percentage of our population is in gangs? What percent skydives? Is that really your excuse for getting less while spending more?
Or is speeding the reason? Have you ever been to Germany? (+1.2 years on avg life expectancy at half the cost -- plus they cover everyone.)
Your argument seems to be that we should expect lower life expectancy at a higher cost because we have more African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities (ie, we're more heterogeneous). Or because we have rich people and poor people. If that's true, I would say that needs fixing.
Whatever -- I gotta go and get some stuff done.
I plan on celebrating tonight. What are your plans?
Posted by: lies, damned lies, and pudge on March 21, 2010 01:31 PMYou're not making a rational argument here.
If we just looked at life expectancy (demographically, not individually) among the people who have the greatest health care costs in this country, they would have the highest life expectancy. It's the people in this very diverse country who have the lower life expectancy who ALSO have lower health care costs.
Your argument seems to be that we should expect lower life expectancy at a higher cost ...
Except, we we do not have lower life expectancy at higher cost.
... because we have more African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities (ie, we're more heterogeneous)
I was not speaking of race at all, but culture and economics.
Or because we have rich people and poor people.
In part, of course. Is it any shock that rich people spend more money to live longer?
If that's true, I would say that needs fixing.
Yes, YOU would. Rational people, however, don't think that rich people spending more money to live longer means the government should make up the gap for everyone else. By the same logic, government should buy everyone a large house.
I plan on celebrating tonight.
Celebrating the death of the Democratic Party? Seems out of character for you.
No, human life is not the same as conspicuous consumption. The only commonality they have is that money is somehow involved. No one disagrees that large property is the purview of the rich; the majority of American do agree that health care coverage should not be determined by wealth.
Posted by: "Steve" Jensen on March 21, 2010 04:48 PMHow sad for you.
It's how you structure your assets to protect against liability losses, or - in the case of this insanity - Government theft. I can own planes, and houses, and cars and not have a single asset in my own name.
The asset tax will only hit the middle and upper-middle class. Once again, class warfare used to actually steal from the poor and middle class to give to their elected leaders all in the name of soaking the rich. And the rich laugh and enjoy their assets, safe in the knowledge their bought-and-paid-for buddies in Congress (most of whom would be hit with the asset tax) are protecting them once again.
Thieves all...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 21, 2010 11:31 PMFrom personal experience, I can tell you the quality is as good, and even better than what we enjoy here in the US. Note that there are reasonable co-pays, there are no "waiting lines" like in the defective UK system, and there is a private insurance component.
Wouldn't you want this? Why not?
Posted by: Proteus on March 22, 2010 07:46 PMBut to address what you actually said: I can tell you the quality is as good, and even better than what we enjoy here in the US.
Not better than what I experience, no.
Note that there are reasonable co-pays, there are no "waiting lines" like in the defective UK system, and there is a private insurance component. Wouldn't you want this? Why not?
First of all, I already have all that, without the government controlling it. So the question is, what do I have to gain with the French system? You have no answer, I know.
Second, the really scary part about what you are saying is that it does not matter what freedoms we give up, as long as the result is something that is "reasonably" good. You know, Singapore is very clean, has high life expectancy, and a market economy ... wouldn't you want this? Why not?
Oh, yeah, forgot to mention, there's no freedom of speech, no jury trials, executions for selling marijuana, and corporal punishment for many minor crimes.
Just like with the health insurance bill, you only mention the good parts, and not the bad parts. Yes, the French system has raisins in it. It also costs a lot in taxes and liberty (not to mention that we have a much broader array of medical services more broadly available in the U.S.).
I've lived in Belgium (very similar health care to France), Chile, the US and now much of the time in China. Belgium and France are great if you have some money for those co-pays; if you don't, you go on the full Government dole and that makes the UK look like a dreamland.
Chile and China get it right: there's a basic plan that's OK (similar to WA State) for the truly poor, and you have co-pays but they're very low. Everyone else buys what they can/choose to afford. And if you don't have enough coverage, tough. Should have thought of that before. Of course, people in those nations actually have learned to consider consequences and plan accordingly - imagine that, personal responsibility!
You know, my friend just had his hot water heater burst. Can we change homeowner's insurance laws so that he can buy additional, lower deductible coverage right now - after the fact - and get his drywall and carpets replaced for free? It's the same idiotic thing this farce of a law does, and it will bankrupt the US.
You keep toeing that party line, though, like a good little lemming!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 23, 2010 06:01 AM20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
By David Hogberg
Posted 03/21/2010 03:24 PM ET
If some reports are to be believed, the Democrats will pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today. Thus, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.
Of course, the bill is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin's adage, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.
1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)
2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).
3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).
4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employers' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).
6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a "Bronze plan," which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d)(1)(A))
8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you'd like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).
9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can't do that. (Section 9005 (i)).
11. If you are a physician and you don't want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It's not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients' care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))
12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a "Medicare provider agreement" by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn't have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)).
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can't (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).
14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed "unreasonable" by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)
15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).
16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).
17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)
18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).
19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).
20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).