Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

MSNBC: Who wins, who loses in Senate health bill


Tulane Skins Fan

Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON - The little town of Libby, Mont., isn't mentioned by name in the Senate's mammoth health care bill, but it's one of the big winners in the legislation, thanks to the influence of Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

After pushing for years for help for residents of the area, thousands of whom suffer from asbestos-related illnesses from a now-closed mineral mining operation, Baucus inserted language in a package of last-minute amendments that grants them access to Medicare benefits.

* * *

WINNERS

Cosmetic surgeons, who fended off a 5 percent tax on their procedures.

Nebraska, Louisiana, Vermont and Massachusetts. These states are getting more federal help paying for a proposed Medicaid expansion than other states are. In the case of Nebraska — represented by Sen. Ben Nelson, who's providing the critical 60th vote for the legislation to pass — the federal government is picking up 100 percent of the tab for the expansion, in perpetuity.

Beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage plans — the private managed-care plans within Medicare — in Florida. Hundreds of thousands of them will have their benefits grandfathered in thanks to a provision tailored by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., that also affects a much smaller number of seniors in a few other states.

Longshoremen. They were added to the list of workers in high-risk professions who are shielded from the full impact of a proposed new tax on high-value insurance plans.

Community health centers. They got $10 billion more in the revised bill, thanks to advocacy by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

A handful of physician-owned hospitals being built around the country — including one in Bellevue, Neb. — which would be permitted to get referrals from the doctors who own them, avoiding a new ban in the Senate bill that will apply to hospitals built in the future. Without mentioning Nebraska or other states by name, the Senate bill pushes back some legal deadlines by several months, in effect making a few hospitals that are near completion eligible to continue receiving referrals from the doctors who own them. Chalk up another win for Nelson.

AARP, the lobby for elderly people. The new Democratic bill has about $1 billion in extra Medicaid payments to states that provide visiting nurses and other in-home or community services to prevent low-income people from needing to be admitted to hospitals. In House-Senate bargaining, AARP also is expected to win one of their top priorities: a full closing of the so-called "doughnut hole," the gap in Medicare's coverage of prescription drugs.

LOSERS

Tanning salons, which are getting hit with a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services, replacing the cosmetic surgery tax.

Progressives. They had to give up on their long-held dream of a new government-run insurance plan so that Democratic leaders could lock down the necessary votes from moderates.

People making over $200,000 a year. A proposed 0.5 percent increase in the Medicare payroll tax was bumped up to 0.9 percent in the latest version, putting the tax at 2.35 percent on income over $200,000 a year for individuals, $250,000 for couples.

Generic drug makers. They fought unsuccessfully to block 12 years of protection that makers of brand-name biotech drugs — expensive pharmaceuticals made from living cells — will get against generic would-be competitors.

____________________________

I think the list of winners and losers is more informative than the first two paragraphs of htis article.

Notice that "conservatives" is not on the list of losers, but "progressives" is. For all the outrage the last couple days by the right wing, I'd suggest actually evaluating the bill; then you'll notice that its basically the same system we've always had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Losers

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html

The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more. And on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ask this again and again, why beyotch now and not at all during the past 8 years? Or about the 8 years with Reagan? Selective memory much? :laugh:

and why is it just "your children"? :doh:

I did ***** about GOP spending.

This is thousands of percent more. Why were you so enraged then but accepting of it now?

This will bankrupt us. With little to no tangible benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost is a legit concern. But your kids will fall in the winners category too because they will have insurance and not have to worry about it.

They'd have insurance without this bill. Now that insurance will cost them more, and they will pay higher taxes to pay for other people coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'd have insurance without this bill. Now that insurance will cost them more, and they will pay higher taxes to pay for other people coverage.

For the record, I think the bill sucks. I think so because its a lot of cost without enough benefit. The benefits were stripped out of it by Lieberman and the democrats who run the Senate like a bunch of Stuart Smalleys (fitting that Franken is actually there now).

They would not necessarily have insurance without this bill though. If they were totally healthy, they'd have insurance. And you'd get to pay for it. However, now they'll have it whether they get sick or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I think the bill sucks. I think so because its a lot of cost without enough benefit. The benefits were stripped out of it by Lieberman and the democrats who run the Senate like a bunch of Stuart Smalleys (fitting that Franken is actually there now).

They would not necessarily have insurance without this bill though. If they were totally healthy, they'd have insurance. And you'd get to pay for it. However, now they'll have it whether they get sick or not.

For the record, I have always said if we're going to do it, it needs to be all the way. IE- single payor.

My kids like me, my employees, my wife through her work would all have coverage sick or healthy if they got coverage through their employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the bill doesn't do jack **** about reducing health care costs, all the fundamental problems are still there... well except for the one scenario were healthy people opt out, therefore increasing cost for everyone else (but I really don't buy that one). But the people who do win are those that can't (or have difficulty) affording health insurance now. Pretty much everybody else loses, but probably not as much on a per capita basis as those people gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not for this bill. I was only for health care and medicare and reform and regulation. I live in an area where able bodied unemployed government supported minorities party to the wee hours and sleep till afternoon visibly gathering in the streets with beer and wine in early afternoon while the working class pay for it. I was never interested in giving those that Don't Want To Work, free medical care, even though they take it now. But bankrupting the government might be a good thing. The spend-o-holics need to hit bottom somehow. I have enough cash to live for about 6 years (10 if I'm thrifty) and maybe 15 years if I use credit lines, so if this country goes belly up maybe China will have to let us out of half our debt. My Son is dual citizen (Canada) I've already spoken to the Canadian consulate and if he moves there so can I and I can apply for dual citizenship in 2 years. Vancouver is looking pretty good. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the bill doesn't do jack **** about reducing health care costs, all the fundamental problems are still there... well except for the one scenario were healthy people opt out, therefore increasing cost for everyone else (but I really don't buy that one). But the people who do win are those that can't (or have difficulty) affording health insurance now. Pretty much everybody else loses, but probably not as much on a per capita basis as those people gain.

I don't think this is true. One of the biggest advantages for big businesses regarding health insurasnce is that they have a large pool of employees and are able to get a better average rate. This bill allows small businesses to pool together across state lines and get the same deal that would have previously been only available to large businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They forgot the biggest losers of all----Democrats up for reelection. There was always going to be some losses for the party in power but this is setting up to be a bloodshed that's never been seen. Think 1994 times ten.

If you're going to PO the other side of the aisle, you need to make sure your base has your back in an excited manner and this bill doesn't please anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did ***** about GOP spending.

This is thousands of percent more. Why were you so enraged then but accepting of it now?

This will bankrupt us. With little to no tangible benefit.

but beotching and voting are two different things aren't they? The way that I see it, it's a mistake to vote any one party into control of the Exec. and Legislative branches. It was mistake when the repubs did it and imo those voters are now responsible for the pendulum swinging fully to the left. It's gonna cost me, but I am enjoying watching the repubs squirm and squeal and I hope it lasts for a long time. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but beotching and voting are two different things aren't they? The way that I see it, it's a mistake to vote any one party into control of the Exec. and Legislative branches. It was mistake when the repubs did it and imo those voters are now responsible for the pendulum swinging fully to the left. It's gonna cost me, but I am enjoying watching the repubs squirm and squeal and I hope it lasts for a long time. ;)

I'll wave to you when Im on the top of the pendulum swing.

Sort of like the swinging boat ride at Busch Gardens. One end goes up and the other gets a face full of spitballs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ask this again and again, why beyotch now and not at all during the past 8 years? Or about the 8 years with Reagan? Selective memory much? :laugh:

and why is it just "your children"? :doh:

I am sorry but the spending that Obama and the current regime in the House and Senate are proposing simply dwarfs any spending Reagan did. Absolutely no comparison.

As for the last 8 years, when Bush sold out for the bank bailouts, conservatives did complain and say it was a bad idea then, perhaps you were not paying attention.

Never has a Republican President tried to nationalize 1/6 of the nations economy and grant such sweeping (expensive) entitlements.

Will this program be popular? Probably among those who reap the benefits off the labor of others. The old saying; "When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can pretty much count on the support of Paul."

Unfortunately, we live in a nation where too many people vote for the politician who promises them the most handouts instead of the politician who will allow then to keep the most of what they earn on their own. We already have many socialist aspects of our government, this is simply an opportunistic expansion of the socialism, while the Liberals have the super-majority control of the House and Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They forgot the biggest losers of all----Democrats up for reelection. There was always going to be some losses for the party in power but this is setting up to be a bloodshed that's never been seen. Think 1994 times ten.

If you're going to PO the other side of the aisle, you need to make sure your base has your back in an excited manner and this bill doesn't please anyone.

This is why they must ram this :pooh: through NOW. If they fail to get this done before the mid-term elections, then they will have wasted their opportunity to get it done. Republicans know this and that is why they are doing everything they can to delay this. Democrats know this and that is why they will settle for so many :Pooh: compromises. This is not now and has never really been about "Health care" this has always been about "Power Politics"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ask this again and again, why beyotch now and not at all during the past 8 years? Or about the 8 years with Reagan? Selective memory much? :laugh:

and why is it just "your children"? :doh:

One because if you argeed with the war it needed to be funded. Didn't agree with the tarp #1.

That said, Obama is doubling the deficit, something Bush didn't even come close to. Not only that, it's not neccesary. We can't do it now and we need to focus on other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WINNERS

Nebraska, Louisiana, Vermont and Massachusetts. These states are getting more federal help paying for a proposed Medicaid expansion than other states are. In the case of Nebraska — represented by Sen. Ben Nelson, who's providing the critical 60th vote for the legislation to pass —

the federal government is picking up 100 percent of the tab for the expansion, in perpetuit.........

Losers

Those they think we should be equal under the law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One because if you argeed with the war it needed to be funded. Didn't agree with the tarp #1.

That said, Obama is doubling the deficit, something Bush didn't even come close to. Not only that, it's not neccesary. We can't do it now and we need to focus on other things.

Well, that's not exactly true. Presidents submit their budgets in February, but the fiscal years for those budgets don't start until October. Bush submitted his last budget long before the "crisis" part of the financial crisis had hit, and long before he approved of the bailouts. When you look at the actual amount of money spent under the last year of his administration, Bush doubled his own biggest deficit. Obama's now expanding upon that, much to the delight of whoever makes spare parts for the National Debt Clock.

Obama's a mega-spender. But Bush did run a trillion-dollar deficit of his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...