Over the last few days, there has been some rather idiotic blathering coming from the Republicans and their allies that the Health Insurance Reforms are going to bankrupt some of the nation's top companies and render them unable to compete internationally, such as Prudential, AT&T, Caterpillar, 3M, Verizon, and others. Indeed, The Hayride harps on this in a post, stating that:
" ... we see the fantasies and delusions of Waxman and his left-wing ideologues in Congress running up against the cold, hard wall of the reality-based community."
Fantasies and delusions? Seriously? Let's find out exactly what has got the Republicans and their conservative allies so concerned, from a blog part of the Wall Street Journal's network:
As explained in plain English in today's Wall Street journal, "companies that provide this [Medicare Part D] benefit, as AT&T [and Prudential, Caterpillar, 3M, etc.] does, receive a federal subsidy, plus they can deduct the value of this subsidy from their taxes. The health overhaul cancels the deductibility of the subsidy."
Let me ask a question of readers here in even plainer English: Can anybody actually be upset about the fact that giant corporations have to stop taking tax deductions for welfare checks they get for providing health care to their employees and retirees?
Imagine if you will, the government sending you a check to pay for your prescription drugs and then you getting to deduct that amount from your income tax statement.
Seriously, Republicans? You and your allies like The Hayride support corporate welfare? I wonder where the Louisiana GOP stands on this ...
The following list is a summary of the changes folks will see because of the passage of Health Insurance Reform: (hat tip to Crooks and Liars)
Calendar year 2010
Tax credit assistanceSmall businesses are eligible for a 35% tax credit; non-profits may receive up to a 25% credit.
Medicare Part D "donut hole" begins to close. Seniors receive a $250 rebate for prescription expenses in excess of $2,830.00.
Adoption Credit Increases adoption credit by $1,000, makes it refundable, and extends the credit through the 2011 tax year
Health students' assistance - Expands student loan programs, scholarships and loan repayments for medical services students, also allows exclusions from gross incomes for health professionals serving in underserved areas.
March 23, 2010
Federal grants to states to implement consumer assistance for complaints
April 1, 2010
Medicaid - Allows states to opt to cover parents and childless adults up to 133% of the Federal Poverty Level and receive federal funds under the current (strengthened) formulas.
June 21, 2010
High Risk Pools open for uninsured people. It's my understanding that unlike current state high risk pools, the costs on these will be subsidized and calculated as a national pool, spreading costs and risks across a wider group.
Federal assistance for early retirees - helps companies continue insurance for employees age 55-64
July 1, 2010
The John Boehner Tanning Tax - 10% tax on amounts paid for indoor tanning services
September 23, 2010
Rescissions - Policies may not be rescinded when people get sick. This applies to all new and existing policies, whether through an employer or individual.
Lifetime Limits - All lifetime limits on policies are eliminated.
Annual Limits - All group and individual plans will have tight restrictions on annual benefit limits. There will be no annual benefit limits once the exchange comes online 1/1/2014.
Preventative - 100% coverage for preventative health services.
Improved claims appeal process.
October 1, 2010
Community Health Centers Funding to strengthen existing community health centers and begin new ones in all 50 states.
Primary Care Workforce expansion via additional funding for scholarships and student loans.
The above changes affect all of us. There are more changes this year that apply to those in specific situations. You can find them here.
The day after the House passed health insurance reform by a vote of 219-212, we've heard from the GOP and their conservative allies about how they're gonna repeal the bill next year, (which gave me a good belly laugh, because that would require them to get veto-proof majorities in the Congress, and that's not possible, as there are not 26 Democrats running for re-election in the Senate this fall). Browsing the internet tubes at this late hour, I came across this speech given by the President this past January in remembrance of Dr. King:
The speech resonates ... as there is still work yet to be done. The battle has not yet been won. As a history professor of mine always said, "America is meant to be unfinished. We are meant to keep striving for that more perfect Union."
The transcript is below the fold for those of y'all at work or on dial-up. And a note to the writers of The Hayride ... y'all should take a good hard look at the language below the fold that is in bold. I did that just for y'all.
The Fix, a Washington Post blog, ran a piece about Governor PBJ's stock rising in national political circles again because he has sold himself as a "health care policy expert."
The Governor is an expert in health care policy? Really? Perhaps someone should page Rep. Bill Cassidy, who's actually a doctor, and had some interesting things to say about Governor PBJ's handling of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals during the Foster Administration during the 2003 gubernatorial campaign: (emphasis added)
The Jindal Record is Poor One The Advocate (Baton Rouge, La.) - September 18, 2003
Working with uninsured patients, medical education and public health programs, I took interest in Gov. Mike Foster's advertisement printed in The Sunday Advocate on Sept. 7 in which he praises Bobby Jindal's record as secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals and in particular Jindal's accomplishment in cutting the DHH budget. For those whose concern about health care goes beyond cutting budgets, the Jindal record is poor.
When Jindal was appointed secretary of DHH, he published his list of goals. Among these were: "ensuring high quality health care services will be available for the indigent, disabled, working poor ..."; "focusing on primary and preventive care ..." and "developing Louisiana as a Southern regional center of excellence for medical education" (http://www.geocities.com/bcassi/JindalGoals.html). None of these goals was met.
As he cut Medicaid, reimbursement for health-care providers was cut below their cost of treating patients ("La. Medicaid cuts implemented," The Advocate, July 2, 1996). Paying physicians and hospitals below cost decreased the number of physicians who saw Medicaid patients and forced providers who did to shift the cost for caring for Medicaid patients to the privately insured ("Medicaid patients dwindling, Lower payments to doctors may be cause," The Advocate, March 27, 2000). Jim Brown, then commissioner of insurance, predicted that cost-shifting could raise private medical insurance premiums 20 percent ("Plan cuts state Medicaid," The Advocate, Feb. 19, 1997). In 2003, it was estimated that the actual figure was 17 percent. The effect of this has been to make health insurance so expensive that many employees dropped their insurance ("Rising insurance costs affect companies, employees," The Advocate, April 20, 2003). They are priced out of insurance as a result of Jindal's policies, whose goal was increasing access to health care.
Another goal was improving preventive care. Childhood immunization is a cornerstone of preventive care. In 1995 and 1996, Louisiana was ranked 10th in the United States in the percent of infants 19 to 35 months old who were completely immunized. In 1997, as Foster and Jindal assumed control, Louisiana fell to 21st, in 1998 to 30th and in 1999 to 38th (http://www.cdc.gov/nip/coverage/#NIS).
Indeed, after eight years of the Foster/ Jindal administration, Louisiana has now been ranked as the least-healthy state in the nation for three straight years, despite spending more per capita on health care than the national average. The problem, according to David Hood, the current secretary of DHH, is inadequate access to primary care and preventive services ("State spending ranks high but overall health ranks low," The Advocate, April 13, 2003). Yet improving these was the Foster/Jindal goal.
The last goal was "developing Louisiana as a Southern regional center of excellence for medical education." Jindal left the state before he could effect this, but the current Foster budget endangers medical education. ("Sharing the misery," Baton Rouge Business Report, September 2, 2003).
Bobby Jindal is unquestionably a nice man who is young, well-spoken, and intelligent. Yet he failed in his three goals as Secretary of DHH. Contrary to what Gov. Foster says, Jindal's record does not indicate that he is capable of the much harder job of Governor.
For the Governor to blast President Obama's legislative policies on health care when his record as the head of the Department of Health and Hospitals fits in really well with the Republican agenda on health insurance reform - help the health insurance industry reap record profits at the expense of the health of the American people - is the height of hypocrisy.
Our "Democratic" Senator has signed onto a letter asking for more time to kill health insurance reform.
While the Senators are polite, and say they want more time to study the proposals, the fact is, they want the extra time so their wealthy benefactors - the health insurance industry - can scare Americans into believing that they are going to lose their health insurance under any legislation currently circulating in Congress. The fact is, any health insurance reform bill that does not include a public, national health insurance program will be a bill designed to pad the bottom line of the health insurance companies.
That's what happens when your Senator looks at her position as a job, and not a cause. Because if she treated being a Senator from Louisiana as a cause, she'd be more likely to fight to improve people's lives, the electoral consequences of her actions be damned. But no, because she looks at being Senator as a job, she worries about raising money for her re-election. Thus, she doesn't want to piss off the people who donated $1.6 million that much.
Be a leader, Senator. You come from the state that gave us Huey Long. Huey fought for us all ... regardless of socioeconomic position and race. You've done the same in areas that don't threaten your ability to raise campaign cash. Something tells me that if Huey were alive today, he'd be coming up with quotes like this about your campaign contributors:
"We swapped the tyrant 3,000 miles away for a handful of financial slaveowning overlords who make the tyrant of Great Britain seem mild."
And then he'd call you a coward for not standing up to them for US.
