Now, before anyone goes chopping me head off for posting the facts, below, take note that I have adopted a "wait and see" attitude about Obamacare. You folks have all these good things to say about it, so let's just wait and see how it goes?

The article is a bit dramatic, but the facts are there. This is going to have a huge effect on my business, in a time when it has already been tougher than ever to make a living.

Some businesses are doing better, but a great many are really having a tough go of it already which means fewer dollars for product research, etc. (see #16).

Honestly, what do you all think of the items, below? How do they effect you, or your company?

ISO

***********************************************************


20 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).

R&D is tax deductable. The taxpayer is/was picking up the tab and the corps, for instance pharmaceuticals, turn around and charge more for their product here in the US and much less overseas. So we the taxpayer take it up the ... twice. Not unreasonably to finally get some of it back.

1. what if you want to drive and don't want liability insurance? Pretty muchthe same principal. if something happens either you are covered or "we" pay for it.
2. Do you really want to go there? As you get older or contract an illness you pay through the nose? Aren't the young paying for the old now via SS, medicare, etc? Aren't the taxpayer already paying for those whom the insurance companies refuse to cover?
3. "You would like to pay less in premiums" I'd like to pay less in taxes too. Good luck with that.
4. "like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care"
the vast majority of doctors and insurance companies claim preventative care is key to holding down medical costs.
5. What's to say about this one? Go out of business you douce bag.
6. Come on. Where can you get a policy like that now? The idea behind insurance is it's a pool and each memeber covers the others. duh. What's desired here a single white male only policy?
7. What? Doesn't even make sense.
8. See #5.
9. See #5.
10. Actually employees don't want anything deducted from their salaries. The only reason they do is because the employer is passing more and more costs on to the employee. In other words cutting the employees pay. Is your ceo/execs are pocketing millions see #5.
11. Insurance companies meddle much more into the physicians practice not suggesting but ordering what treatments are allowed.
12. Anyone ever heard of a physician owning a hospital?
13. Another country? See #12.
14. Absolutely fantastic. States do it now and still the insurance companies sit on a ton of cash and award millions in bonuses.
15. See opening remarks.
16. See opening remarks.
17. See opening remarks.
18. Once again very cool. Nobody is worth that and if you are raising rates it shouldn't be to line the ceo's pocket.
19. So an individual makes $300,000 it'll cost him $500. Cry me a river.
20. Are we worried there will be less boob jobs?

I think a lot of people confuse "I don't like this" with "it must be illegal and stealing our freedoms!"...

I also think a lot of people "don't like this" because they were told not to.

It would also be a lot better of a plan if those who are telling some to "not like this" purposely made it not as good as it could have been.

Fish on...

Todd

Here is what I don't get about this plan, and why on the cover I don't like this plan. I agree that everybody needs access to affordable health care. Even that 27 year old in perfect health needs affordable health care coverage, because let's face it, accidents happen every day. But .... I just don't see how this bill accomplishes the "affordable" part. If the Feds are going to stick the Insurance companies with a bill for 6.7 billion, who is going to really pay that? The companies them selves? I don't think so, we are, through higher premiums. If the drug makers are going to be socked with a tab for 2.3 billion who is going to pay it? We are, because the insurance companies will get billed more to pay for the drugs that where used by the Docs which will be passed on to us in the form of higher health insurance premiums. And the list goes on. And if the Gov tries to tell them they can't raise premiums to cover the higher costs, they start to lose profitibility and when private companies lose profitibility, they go out of business, which leads to less competition, which leads to higher prices, or ...... the single payer, fully government run health care system, which is what I really think their ultimate goal is, and to me, that is really scary!

So, affordable health care for everybody is needed, lowering the costs to evry day folks is desprately needed, I just don't see how this bill can accomplish that ... hope I'm wrong.

Look at any major insurance or pharmaceutical corp's annual reports then ask yourself why are health care costs rising at all? Seems to me it's well past time we start dropping the hammer on these price gougers. I doubt they will though.

So I see it's glaringly obvious you have never ran a business or had to meet a payroll. Your suggestion for companies who cannot afford high cost plan for their employees is to simply "go out of business you douce bag". Brilliant analysis.

Because the employees of that company would much rather be out of a job than have a plan with a high deductible or simply have a job with no plan at all.

+1

Yes the harm would be financial. Same as a medical emergency with no coverage. Harms the taxpayer.

Also happens to be the reason given for the motorcycle helmet law. It wasn't to protect the rider it was to reduce the high cost of motorcycle accidents. Same goes for the seatbelt law. All about financial harm to the populace not the individual.

However, you do not have to drive a car, and you don't have to ride a
motorcycle. Therefore, you have an option to not purchase auto insurance. Under the current bill, you will have to purchase medical
insurance or else the IRS will come after you. Very skillfully this bill
uses the IRS as the agent to collect the "medical insurance tax". The reason for using the IRS is to attempt to skirt the constitutionality of
the Federal Government requiring individuals to purchase insurance. Since the IRS is collecting it is now a "tax" and the government has the
legal authority to collect taxes.

Motorcyle helmet and seatbelt laws are state laws, not federal.

Yes they are. But they are examples of the logic.

"However, you do not have to drive a car, and you don't have to ride a
motorcycle. Therefore, you have an option to not purchase auto insurance."

Yet in this case you don't have the option of never ever needing medical assistance. Even someone in their twenties who has yet to ever have an issue will eventually have issues. It's pretty much a 100% certainty.

Hmmmm..

I believe that all medical doctors are the spawn of Satan.

Does this mean the IRS will give me a religious exemption from having
to pay the "medical tax"?

ISO

OK, conservatards, how bout you address the USAPATRIOT acts I&II before you cry like little bitches about having to have heath insurance being a loss of freedom??

"Some people would rather die than submit themselves to medical practitioners of any sort."

As long as it doesn't cost me I'm OK with that.

"Billions of people around the world never see a "real" doctor"

Yup. Those are third world countries. Only the rich get treatment.

One option we could contemplate. If those whom feel this is a loss of freedom were willing to have tattoed "Do not treat" on themselves then we can just shovel them up into a dumpster if they collapse. This is too much like right to die and the Party Of No would be outraged.

So, if you're 25 and in good health and decide not to enroll in a health plan at $7200 a year, the feds will fine you $750. Meaning the 25 year old can put $6450 in his pocket. Then that 25 year old gets sick and is immediately eligible for coverage in a health plan. Why would that person want coverage when well?

"Why would that person want coverage when well?"

He wouldn't. Just like he wouldn't want to pay SS until retirement. Or pay property insurance until his house catches on fire. Me either. Can I be exempt and only pay for various coverages when or if I need them? I'd put a ton of money in the bank.

AM you might be right but something has to be done. I hope some day patients are sorted by symptoms and Nurse practioners play a larger role. If you have flu symptoms go here where the staff is overseen by a Nurse Practioner. If he/she deems it more serious then you see the full fledged doc. Otherwise a Nurse Prac can prescribe, etc. I actually think it could turn into a huge business of smaller walk in clinics. In and out like the ER was.

Stlheads point is dead on... It seems really about which people you don't mind dying/killing...

DEMS
* Keep uninsured/poor in medical care, its a right
* Assisted suicide is a right (you have the freedom to kill yourself)
* No rights for unborn babies
* State has no right to kill a convicted murderer. Imprison for life yes, kill no.

REPUBLICANS
* Uninsured/lazy -- if they die w/o insurance, they reap what they sow, social programs are socialism.
* Your personal freedom doesn't include the right to terminate your own life, or a life you have guardianship over, even if they are brain dead
* Unborn babies deserve any/all legal protections we can offer, potentially even if the mothers life is in danger
* Capital Punishment is strongly supported

It's hard to know which of these positions is more about "Freedom" since both parties seem willing to tread on individual liberties in some important ways.

You don't have to have home owners insurance either, as long as you own the house out right.

Irie, I have noticed that in the previous 12 months the Patriot Act
has not been repealed. Matter of fact, the new crew has made a lot of use of it. Must be ok then huh?

No HMO's you are required to see their set of providers. Walk in clinics mean anyone can walk in off of the street. An insurance company should never be able to cherry pick providers whom will cow tow to the insurance company. If the state certifies the provider, ie a license to practice, then the insurance co shouldn't be able to say [censored] about it.

"You don't have to have home owners insurance either, as long as you own the house out right. "

Exactly right. And when your house burns down don't come crying to us. So medical should be the same right? You don't carry insurance I don't want to see you anywhere near a doctor or hospital ever right? Die if you must. If so we need to start swearing in medical staff and emergency personnel. No insurance then refuse to treat.