Knotty issues for health care

[30A Skunkape]

Grand proposal! I wouldn't have ever thought that. Maybe it could also apply to political contributions. Rep. Henry Waxman for instance - he's in a district that is practically a "sure thing" for him. He said so in his book. Almost all contributions to his campaign are a windfall since they aren't needed and he makes a pretty good living in salary. Maybe we're on to something....

Maybe we should call it the 'slip'n'fall profit tax:funn:

Seriously, I thought about this medical malpractice topic today. I was in Atlanta taking a seven hour certification test, having to pay $1800 for the mind numbing experience, $190 for about 8 hours in an airport hotel room to sleep in last night as well as the lost revenue from being out of the office, driving back and forth, etc. During our lunch break I sat at the hotel bar to eat and lo and behold, I got to enjoy the last half of Jerry Springer and the beginning of Maury Povich (sp?). I know, exciting and irrelevant, right? Wrong. Those shows are essentially underwritten by plaintiff's attorneys insinuating a big payout to remedy whatever harm society has handed the numbskulls watching such crap when they should be at work;every commercial break had at least one and usually more than one such ad. One catchy number was 1-800-win-win-1. Pathetic. Whoever the creep lawyer is that casts for clientele in such a manner should be disbarred. Or we could impose a slip'n'fall profit tax to get them to behave in a manner more consistent with the profession they represent. Egads. At least Springer primed me for a barrage of questions on genetic disasters.

 

[30ashopper]

Under the Finance Committee bill, the tax would be imposed beginning in 2013 on employer- sponsored health plans with total premiums exceeding $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families, regardless of whether the coverage was paid for by the employer, the individual or both. The tax would be paid by insurers, who would be expected to pass along the cost to customers.

Critics say that would mean an increase in premiums or in out-of-pocket expenses for employees, raising medical costs for individuals and families.

Supporters say the more likely prospect is that employers would bargain-hunt or take other steps to avoid the tax, putting pressure on insurers to offer cheaper coverage and slowing the rise in medical costs for everyone.

In a preliminary estimate, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that absent any such employer efforts, 14 percent of family health policies and 19 percent of individual policies would be hit by the tax in 2013. By 2019, according to the estimate, 37 percent of family policies and 41 percent of individual policies would be affected. Those numbers rise over time in these calculations because although the initial tax threshold would increase with the economy’s overall inflation, premiums would be expected to rise even faster.

Many Democratic senators, led by the Finance Committee chairman, Max Baucus of Montana, like the idea of the tax, and Mr. Obama embraced it in his speech to Congress on Sept. 9.

“This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money,” the president said then. “This modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run.”

Congress has also heard from many economists, Republicans and Democrats alike, who support the tax.

But House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, the chamber’s chief tax-writer, oppose the idea, as do labor unions and businesses. Ms. Pelosi last week floated the idea of taxing insurers’ “windfall profits” as a possible alternative, to supplement the House’s main revenue raiser, an income tax surcharge on the nation’s highest earners.

At least 173 House Democrats, two-thirds of the party caucus, have signed a letter to Ms. Pelosi voicing opposition to the insurance tax .

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/health/policy/13plans.html

Another knotty issue - keeping special interests happy. Thankfully it looks like Pelosi might lose this one.

 

[30ashopper]

Maybe we should call it the 'slip'n'fall profit tax:funn:

Seriously, I thought about this medical malpractice topic today. I was in Atlanta taking a seven hour certification test, having to pay $1800 for the mind numbing experience, $190 for about 8 hours in an airport hotel room to sleep in last night as well as the lost revenue from being out of the office, driving back and forth, etc. During our lunch break I sat at the hotel bar to eat and lo and behold, I got to enjoy the last half of Jerry Springer and the beginning of Maury Povich (sp?). I know, exciting and irrelevant, right? Wrong. Those shows are essentially underwritten by plaintiff's attorneys insinuating a big payout to remedy whatever harm society has handed the numbskulls watching such crap when they should be at work;every commercial break had at least one and usually more than one such ad. One catchy number was 1-800-win-win-1. Pathetic. Whoever the creep lawyer is that casts for clientele in such a manner should be disbarred. Or we could impose a slip'n'fall profit tax to get them to behave in a manner more consistent with the profession they represent. Egads. At least Springer primed me for a barrage of questions on genetic disasters.

The trial lawyer ads! Oh I love those! Got mesothelioma? Did vartan give you blood clots? Slip and fall at work? We can help! (and take our heftly 50% cut of the rewards while we're at it!) We'll even work for free! (but only if we think your case represents a net positive in our bank account!) Call us today at 1-800-SUETHEM.