Most of the provisions that become effective prior to 2014 apply only to "new plans" and many don't apply to self-insured plans. A majority of large corporations self-insure. http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/insur
ance-reform-chart.pdf The Dems better do a real good job explaining what constitutes a "new plan" and what people need to do to access these plans or there will be hell to pay when people think they are covered under these provisions and find out that they are not.
8% of your income is only applicable to insurance premiums and does not apply to deductibles or coinsurance. Even subsidized coverage has deductibles and coinsurance of 20% up to an out of pocket maximum.
I doubt that many will feel differently about it. You, of course, have a right to consider this a victory but I do not. The Dems have basically created a very expense insurance and pharma give away program. They either negotiated away or voted down every real element to contain costs and save money.
We currently pay 2 to 3 times for health care and 35% - 50% more for prescription drugs than other countries.
If the Dems are really worried about the physical, fiscal, and economic health of our country, they would fix the problem rather than using federal funds to subsidize the grossly over priced status quo.
From the Obama `08 campaign document, "Barack Obama's Plan for a Healthy America" (PDF):
The Obama plan both builds upon and improves our current insurance system, upon which most Americans continue to rely, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 45 million Americans uninsured. >Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees; (2) make available the National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses that want to purchase private health insurance directly; (3) require all employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees; (4) mandate all children have health care coverage; (5) expand Medicaid and SCHIP to cover more of the least well-off among us; and (6) allow state flexibility for state health reform plans. PDF
Yes, they lowered the percentage of income for those in the 400% of FPL to 9.8%. You know how they did that. They raised the amount that families in the 134% - 150% must pay.
Also, I sure hope that people in your sample family don't get sick because they will be on the hook for 30% of health care expenses. Their policy will have a 70% actuarial value. Of course if someone goes over the annual limit, they will have to pay 100% of the costs.
McCaskill votes with the Republicans on a fairly regular basis. So this is not surprising. In fact, she often proudly declares she is not a standard Democrat and trots out her bipartisan creds at every opportunity.
The only time she sings a different tune is when she is soliciting contributions. Then she suddenly becomes a proud Democrat and the Republicans are evil, I say, evil.
I agree that health insurance legislation will pass one way or another. Whether or not it will be a significant outcome that provides actual health care or just a mandate for everyone to purchase junk insurance, is what remains in doubt.
The promises that were made on the campaign trail if they are were included could have resulted in decent health care legislation. Without those elements we are left with a $900 billion give away to insurance and pharma.
It is my understanding that all of the other provisions (no exclusion for pre-existing etc.) would remain intact under an opt out plan. To the best of my knowledge, no Dem has indicated that they would allow a state to opt out of participating in HCR. From everything i've read and heard, the underlying basis would remain the same and the only difference would be on whether or not the exchange in a particular state contained a public option.
Also, there is a possibility that if the combined Senate bill contained a public option, even an opt out one, it would be easier to keep a public option when the House and Senate reconcile their bills.
A Florida congresswoman who survived breast cancer said Wednesday that Chris Christie's support for legalizing insurance policies that do not cover mammograms or 48-hour hospital stays after childbirth would "take women back to the dark ages."
Wasserman Schultz also chided Christie for opposing paid family leave and for calling pre-kindergarten programs that Corzine expanded "baby-sitting."
"If Chris Christie becomes governor of New Jersey, he'd take women back to the dark ages with drive-through deliveries, [and] he'd squander the progress we've made on breast cancer," she said. http://tinyurl.com/yc6lljw
Not only women will come down on his head, this should bring out the breast cancer groups in force. Here in MO they are a very strong force.
Carahan's chances of winning would be greatly improved if Congress enacts legislation that energizes the Democratic base.
Passing some type of job creation program and real health care reform would do much to achieve that objective. Allowing Republicans to dictate the provisions in legislation. Not so much. In fact, counterproductive IMO.
Payroll taxes include both Social Security and Medicare. Not a good idea IMO.
Payroll taxes are the state and federal taxes that you, as an employer, are required to withhold and/or to pay on behalf of your employees. You are required to withhold state and federal income taxes as well as social security and Medicare taxes from your employees' wages. You are also required to pay a matching amount of social security and Medicare taxes for your employees and to pay State and Federal unemployment tax. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/tax/artic