FDR gave us the "New Deal". Barack Obama and Joe Biden gave us the "Big F**ing Deal". Profanity aside, that is what they're doing to us.
Barack Obama kept promising that "if you've got health insurance... you like your plan... you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you." True, he wasn't talking about it, but while you might keep "your plan", the terms of "your plan" will be changed on you. Change!
For example, if you have a tax-deferred Health Savings Account, you will no longer be permitted to use it to purchase over-the-counter drugs, only prescription drugs. That won't help you get well or save money, but it will raise your taxes and subsidize Big Pharma. Nice!
And will you be able to keep your HSA at all? Short answer: Only if the Secretary of Health and Human Services decides to permit it.. Hope!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 24, 2010 01:38 PM | Email ThisHere is a video of Obama lying.
Hope and Lies.
On this post, you are wrong in two statements:
1. You state "True, he wasn't talking about it, but while you might keep "your plan", the terms of "your plan" will be changed on you. Change!"
The falsehood here is the assumption that your plan will not change if the bill never went through. This is patently false. Insurance companies have been changing plans every year. They have been jacking premiums and reducing coverage. Therefore, you plan will change. The only question is whose change do you prefer. Do you prefer some company to make these decisions for you with no input from you, or do you wish your elected officials to have some oversight?
2. You state: "For example, if you have a tax-deferred Health Savings Account, you will no longer be permitted to use it to purchase over-the-counter drugs, only prescription drugs. "
While this is not a falsehood, per se, it does beg the question of why should I as a taxpayer subsidize you buying over the counter medications (i.e., you getting to not pay taxes on the income used to buy them)? This also goes against the Republican talking point that all health costs, including company premiums should be taxed (with a tax credit to cover some of the costs). Your statement also begs the question of why should you be favored because you can afford and/or who you work for offers an HSA program, while others can't afford this coverage and do have to pay out of their pocket. In my opinion, this is a good thing (not being allowed to skip paying taxes on income used to buy over-the-counter medications). This can be too abused. For example (somewhat hyperbole, but technically accurate), it means a meth-producer could use their HSA to not pay taxes on supplies they need to produce their product. The real question is why should you be able to buy Viagra and other similar products using tax-free dollars. Colburns amendment actually is a good one. Too bad, he didn't offer it for consideration when the Senate debated the original bill. It most likely will be ruled not in order by the parliamentarian because it doesn't fit the reconciliation rules. It is a good amendment and so is not allowing tax-free dollars to purchase OTC drugs.
Posted by: tc on March 24, 2010 01:59 PMyou really don't like liberty very much, do you?
Posted by: Bastiat Fan on March 24, 2010 02:32 PMYeah, bummer. Maalox or aspirin should be covered along with dental floss and toothpaste. So should my fees for the natatorium where I swim a 30 lap workout every friday. Or the cost of walking shoes that I put 14 miles a week on.
Posted by: Don Swanson on March 24, 2010 02:45 PMIs that true?
Posted by: Gary on March 24, 2010 02:53 PMtc, lay off the kool-aid. Spare us the spin. You've won for now - my kids lost.
Posted by: yaddacubed on March 24, 2010 03:42 PMTC you never own the responsibility EVER; when will you own it?? when????
Posted by: Col. Hogan on March 24, 2010 04:06 PMtc @3: HSAs make sense to level the playing field in the crazy and unfair system we have (and are perpetuating) which gives employer-provided insurance a tax preference that isn't available to individual purchasers. Honestly, I don't think medical goods and services should be given tax preferences over other goods and services that contribute to one's health. But if tax preferences are granted they should be granted fairly and sensibly. Giving a tax preference to a more expensive treatment but not to a more cost-effective treatment is both stupid and antithetical to the stated goal of using this "health care reform" to contain costs.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 24, 2010 04:16 PMI agree, the tax preference for employer-based insurers is absurd, but that doesn't mean all other tax preferences are justified.
Posted by: John Jensen on March 24, 2010 04:27 PMHas anybody been sentenced to death or executed by a Death Panel yet?
Is the change to being no longer be permitted to use a tax-deferred Health Savings Account to purchase over-the-counter drugs, only prescription drugs ARMAGEDDON?
Or is this just frankly a distraction.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 24, 2010 04:36 PMNow why does THAT make perfect sense?
Posted by: James on March 24, 2010 04:48 PMA good read from Real clear markets from today explains it best-A snippet:
Given that there is so little in the federal bill designed as incentives to restrain costs, there's no reason to believe that the nation will escape the fate of New York or Massachusetts once guaranteed issue becomes commonplace, leaving the choice to policymakers of higher taxes, higher premiums, or higher fines for those who go uninsured. Likely, you wind up with all three.
Just how much has government design produced the circumstances we now see in New York and Massachusetts?... In a study of New York, the Manhattan Institute estimated that the Empire State's mandates increased the cost of health premiums by a whopping 42 percent to the highest in the nation (this was before RomneyCare spiked Massachusetts' premiums even higher). The study estimated that up to 37 percent of those who were uninsured in the state could afford coverage if the state junked its expensive mandates, especially the guaranteed issue and community rating mandates. Many of the rest of the uninsured were low-income residents already eligible for Medicaid who never signed up for it. The remaining small group of uninsured were largely those with pre-existing conditions who would have to be covered by a risk pool.
The definition of insanity is when you...(you know the rest)
Posted by: Rick D. on March 24, 2010 06:03 PMIncorrect.
Obama said that THIS BILL will not force you to change your insurance. But THIS BILL DOES change your insurance.
There's no falsehood there. It's a fact. Whether the insurance changes due to other reasons is irrelevant to the fact that this bill (well, law, now) changes your insurance even though Obama said it would not.
While this is not a falsehood, per se, it does beg the question of why should I as a taxpayer subsidize you buying over the counter medications
You're not. It's the HSA owner's money. You're not subsidizing a thing.
Why should HSAs have a tax preference that insurance does not?
Why should employer-provided coverage have tax breaks that my individual-provided coverage does not? I don't get to deduct the cost of my premiums...
Why should I subsidize your health insurance, John?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 24, 2010 06:44 PMI will never venture into your stores again.
Your support of the fascist takeover of the healthcare system doesn't deserve to recieve my hard earned dollars!
I will never venture into your stores again.
Your support of the fascist takeover of the healthcare system doesn't deserve to recieve my hard earned dollars!
It's going to be a bloodbath in November if cowards like Weiner (appropriately named) are the voice put forward to the public by the Democrat party.
How did Americans allow themselves to be enslaved to such a malevolent, clumsy, slip-shod leviathan? In part this was due to the lack of a proper explanation of what "rights" are. If you are alone on island it should be clear that it is senseless to worry about your rights. Rights only apply when you live in a society and then only to your freedom of action. Since rights are non-contradictory you can do anything you want as long as you do not violate the rights of others. Your rights do not impose any obligations on others and vice versa. Rights, most emphatically, do not entitle you to goods and services at the expense of others. Violation of this principle leads inevitably to some variation of socialist slavery.
When rights are properly defined Obamacare immediately is seen as the enforced slavery of doctors and the entire medical and insurance professions. So too are vast swaths of the federal government from Medicare to Social Security to public education seen as violations of individual rights. The federal government needs to be cut down to size and quickly.
I can recall a time when Republicans would not even notice profanity by a Vice-President...
Posted by: tensor on March 24, 2010 10:51 PMA British playwright coined the phrase "The pen is mightier than the sword" but juvenile threats like yours just emphasize that your pen isn't very mighty at all.
Posted by: Bruce on March 25, 2010 12:30 AM..yeah, tar and feathering would be a more suitable alternative.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 25, 2010 06:38 AM- It's not about insuring the nation, it's about controlling the nation. EVERYTHING affects your health and the associated costs.
- I agree that the insurance company may not change but the plans will. I have one of those 'cadllac plans' but I know that as rates rise and because there will be rate caps, benefits will reduce to the bar set by the government. Eventually we will all have the same benefits. A workers' utopia.
- Once the cost curve and the benefits curve cross, the insurance companies will start to pull out. Remember that most of these providers have other businesses and they will divest themselves of non-profitable businesses. Exactly that happened here in WA. The legislature made it illegal to base coverage on existing conditions. All the insurance companies pulled out and you couldn't buy individual plans at all in this state. (No cross state sales, remember?) They figured it out eventually and just made it portable as long as you retained coverage. This allowed profits again so the providers came back.
- How can the federal government regulate health insurance? There's no cross-state purchases so no cross-state commerce? To be clear, I don't believe the federal governmest has the right to prevent purchasing from another state but that's the way it is right now. Is this having your cake and eating it too?
Just a bit about the commerce clause in the contitution. It says 'regulate interstate commerce'. That means to 'make regular', not control it. For example, one state setting tarifs on the goods from another state would be irregular.
Finally, when will IRS agents decide to arm themselves? (I play XBox every now and then.)
Posted by: mykela on March 25, 2010 08:39 AMGood luck with the future, kids. I remember this little skit from the 1970's and it doesn't end well at all.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 25, 2010 09:09 AMIRS = Gestapo
SEIU, ACORN, New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam thugs and goons = Obama's Brown Shirts
The alleged threats and intimidation supposedly inflicted upon Democrat members of Congress and officials is a ruse that may be used to justify activating the goons and thugs for protection and counter measures. My concerns may be premature but are certain to happen.
Posted by: Paddy on March 25, 2010 12:09 PMIRS = Gestapo
SEIU, ACORN, New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam warriors = Obama's Brown Shirts
The alleged threats and intimidation supposedly inflicted upon Democrat members of Congress and officials is a ruse that may be used to justify activating the goons and thugs for protection and counter measures. My concerns may be premature but are certain to happen.
Posted by: Paddy on March 25, 2010 12:11 PMIRS = Gestapo
SEIU, ACORN, New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam warriors = Obama's Brown Shirts
The alleged threats and intimidation supposedly inflicted upon Democrat members of Congress and officials is a ruse that may be used to justify activating the goons and thugs for protection and counter measures. My concerns may be premature but are certain to happen.
Posted by: Paddy on March 25, 2010 12:11 PMIRS = Gestapo
SEIU, ACORN, New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam warriors = Obama's Brown Shirts
The alleged threats and intimidation supposedly inflicted upon Democrat members of Congress and officials is a ruse that may be used to justify activating the "warriors" for protection and counter measures. My concerns may be premature but are certain to happen.
Posted by: Paddy on March 25, 2010 12:13 PMIRS = Gestapo
SEIU, ACORN, New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam warriors = Obama's Brown Shirts
The alleged threats and intimidation supposedly inflicted upon Democrat members of Congress and officials is a ruse that may be used to justify activating the "warriors" for protection and counter measures. My concerns may be premature but are certain to happen.
Posted by: Paddy on March 25, 2010 12:13 PMIRS = Gestapo
SEIU, ACORN, New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam warriors = Obama's Brown Shirts
The alleged threats and intimidation supposedly inflicted upon Democrat members of Congress and officials is a ruse that may be used to justify activating the "warriors" for protection and counter measures. My concerns may be premature but are certain to happen.
Posted by: Paddy on March 25, 2010 12:13 PMIRS = Gestapo
SEIU, ACORN, New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam warriors = Obama's Brown Shirts
The alleged threats and intimidation supposedly inflicted upon Democrat members of Congress and officials is a ruse that may be used to justify activating the "warriors" for protection and counter measures. My concerns may be premature but are certain to happen.
Posted by: Paddy on March 25, 2010 12:14 PMIRS = Gestapo
SEIU, ACORN, New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam warriors = Obama's Brown Shirts
The alleged threats and intimidation supposedly inflicted upon Democrat members of Congress and officials is a ruse that may be used to justify activating the "warriors" for protection and counter measures. My concerns may be premature but are certain to happen.
Posted by: Paddy on March 25, 2010 12:14 PM