A Rebuttal to Agnophile
I received some interesting comments on my Thoughts about the President’s Speech blog. One Xangan, agnophile, posted a rather long comment and I felt that it would be better for me to write a blog in response rather than replying to him in the comment section. So let’s have at it.
The Economy has been pulled back from the brink .
Agnophille wrote:.
Yes, we are in a bad recession. In a few short months we went from losing almost a million jobs a month to losing about 200k and dropping. I call that pulling back from the brink, meaning the brink of another great depression.
"
So, because fewer jobs are being lost, the economy has been pulled back from the brink of disaster? That’s like saying because a gunshot wound patient is losing only half a pint of blood an hour instead of the 2 pints an hour he was losing before, he is out of danger and on the road to recovery. The San Angelo Standard Times stated that “…in a healthy economy, employers need to add a net total of around 125,000 jobs a month just to keep unemployment stable.” That is a +125K jobs/ month before we can see some stability with unemployment rates. Until that happens for at least a few months, we are still in the woods and on the road for higher unemployment. I’ll stick with my original take that the President is being overly optimistic about the present economic situation.
Abortion Funding
Agnophile wrote:
Not one single ammendment has passed on HR 3200. Ammendments have passed in committees, that does not effect the legislation. It effects the proposals that those committees make, none of which have passed. The bill in it's current form does not allow your money to fund someone else's abortion.
True, no amendments have been passed on HR 3200. But tell me, why are the committees adding amendments that do allow for abortion coverage in the public health plan and subsidize plans that cover abortion while killing amendments that would explicitly exclude it if the bill is not going to allow tax money to pay for abortions? It makes little sense to add something on to a bill if you know you will need to remove it later. The first rule of legal documents is that if it’s not written down, it does not exist. Unless abortion funding is explicitly prohibited, it will be assumed to be covered and I would expect a court challenge will occur to mandate that it be allowed. This occurred with Medicaid and history has a way of repeating itself.
Enrollment and penalties
I wrote:
The President again appears to be unfamiliar with the Healthcare Bill that is currently in Congress. Sec.312, Pg. 145, Lines 15-17 specifies that employers MUST enroll their employees into the public health plan or other government improved plan.
Agnophile replied:
Yes. And it defines "government approved plan" as ANY pre-existing policy, any policy that meets the minimum federal requirements. Meaning you can keep exactly the policy you have now and it's illegal for your insurance company to change the terms of your policy or single you out for premium increases because you're in an at-risk group.
Even the Huffington Post points out that the plan can’t guarantee that you will not have to change your policy. If your plan doesn’t meet the government’s standards, your employer will have to change to the public health plan, buy a policy that does conform to the government regulations, or pay a tax. The Lewin Group estimates that 88.1million people would be shifted out of their current employer based plan and put into a government approved one. In addition, 83.4 million privately insured individuals would shift out of private insurance into the public health plan.. Doesn’t sound like you get to keep your current plan to me.
Penalties for not using the public option.
I wrote:
Face being taxed up to 8% of their payroll. Self insured individuals making more than $19,000 will have to switch or pay a 2.5% tax.
Agnophile responded with:
No. It says that your company can be forced to pay a tax between 2 and 8% if they offer no heath insurance whatsoever or a 2.5% tax if they offer health insurance that doesn't comply with the minimum requirements set out in this bill and that 95% of businesses (those that make under a quarter of a million dollars profit) will be exempt from any tax. It says nothing about individual taxes for self-employed people that make 19,000 a year, you're literally just making shit up.
Since this part of the health bill is talking about the Employer’s responsibility under the public option, I would be inclined to think that the penalties are leveled at employers that fail to enroll their employees in either the public health plan or other government approved plan. The tax is dependent on the business’ gross payroll and ranges from 0-8%. I find no tax of 2.5% being listed if a business offers sub-standard health insurance and would ask that agnophile kindly state chapter and verse as to where this elusive detail is found. Now as for the individual tax of 2.5% for not having the government minimal standard insurance, I would like to point out that I wrote SELF INSURED not SEF EMPLOYED since this section is talking about individuals not employers or employees and the fact that it seems a bit harsh to penalize an employee for the failure of their employer to make certain that they have acceptable coverage. This section states the following:
‘20 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
1 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in
2 come for the taxable year, over
3 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
Noting that the word “taxpayer” was used, I assume that anyone below the tax threshold would be exempt from this tax. I used the tax threshold for a married couple of $18,700 and rounded up to $19,000 in my statement. If this is “making up figures” then I apologize and would leave it at anyone who is earning any income and be done with it.
Rationing
I wrote:
Section 1401 of the Healthcare Bill establishes the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Data from this research can be used to form QUALYS(quality adjusted life years) QUALYS are used to determine if a patient will live long enough to justify the cost of a medical treatment. If
the patient is young then the treatment is more likely worth the expense on the theory that they will be able to live long enough to make the government investment in their life worth it by being productive and paying their taxes. Older or handicapped citizens, on the other hand, might not be worth the expense and would not be given the treatment since they will most likely die before they can pay back in taxes what the government spent on them. To
date, 5 amendments, (3 in the Senate and 2 in the House.), have been proposed that would not allow comparative effectiveness research to be used to ration health care. All of these amendments have been killed in committee. If there is to be no rationing of health care, then let the President publicly demand that Congress put such a ban into the Healthcare Bill."
Agnophile reponce was:
Literally none of this exists in that section of the bill. I read the entire section you are talking about, and it mandates that an office be created to research which treatments and medicines are most effective to improve the quality of care people get. It says not one thing about refusing treatment on the basis of how valuable someone's tax contributions are. Wtf? You're fucking crazy man.
The key point that agnophile is missing is CAN BE USED. The data from the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research has the potential to be used in the rationing of health care similar to what has occurred in the UK. Again, amendments that explicitly require that this data not be used to limit the care a person can receive have been killed in committee. If rationing is not going to be part of the plan, then say so in writing.
Medicare Cuts
I wrote:
Yet the Obama Plan calls for $600 billion in unspecified cuts to Medicare. It effectively guts Medicare Advantage with $250 billion in cuts and this will affect benefits for 25% of the seniors on Medicare. In addition, Medicare will experience a 30% increase in the next 30 years as the Boomer population ages. Making cuts in a program with that much of an increase and saying that nobody will lose their benefits is like saying that everyone will get the same
size slice of pie after taking half of it away and inviting a few more guests over to share it with. It isn’t possible.
Agnophile’s rebuttal::
This is a totally batshit insane claim. 600 billion in medicare cuts? That's like 90% of the medicare budget. Cutting 90% of the medicare budget will effect 25% of the people on medicare? Me thinks this is some creative accounting where they take a small cut and factor it out over decades to make it look like a big cut. And the president hasn't proposed cutting medicare, but rather that these changes will reduce medicare costs, and that the money saved should be able to contribute to the public option
If this is an insane claim, then it’s one has been reported by Huffington Press, The Wall Street Journal and Newsmax. Also, please note that I did not say that cutting 90% of Medicare’s budget would affect 25% of the people in Medicare. I said that the cuts in Medicare advantage would affect 25% of Medicare recipients. If you wish to disagree with me, please make certain that you at least take the time to read what is written and understand what I meant before launching a rant.
Look forward to any comments. Please check your egos and flamethrowers at the door. .
"
Chatboard (0)