Letters to the Editor

Sound good?

October 29, 2009

Advertisement

To the editor:

Problems with ObamaCare — Senate version.

First, pages 263-264. High need states will have the federal government pay any increase in Medicaid costs that occur under this bill. What states are those? Those with 12 percent unemployment or higher. And who are those states? According to CNNMoney.com on Sept. 18 they were: Michigan, California, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Oregon. All blue states and one of them home to the dishonorable Harry Reid (D) who is up for election. So, if this passes, Kansans will have to find more money for Medicaid but Harry Reid’s state won’t. Sound good to you?

Second, the tax on Cadillac plans is supposed to start at $21,000 of value. But, if you live in New York, Sen. Schumer (D) has gotten it raised to $24,000 and in Massachusetts, Sen. Kerry (D) has gotten it raised to $25,000 according to Kim Strassel’s Oct. 15 Wall Street Journal article, “States of Personal Privilege.” So Kansans with high-value health insurance will be taxed long before New Yorkers or residents of Massachusetts. Sound good to you?

Third, Sen. Menendez (D) of New Jersey is worried about the tax to be levied on drug companies since New Jersey has so many there. So, he has a special $1 billion tax credit for drug companies in the bill to offset the taxes levied. Sound good to you?

And I could go on. This bill is a disaster!

Comments

Richard Heckler 5 years, 7 months ago

Forget the plans on the table to avoid NOT necessary hassles.

Instead demand HR 676 National Health Insurance which is the only plan the reduces cost by $350 billion annually according to the CBO. It's the only Dollars and Sense plan available. HR 676 has been studied for years and refined.

Shouldn't taxpayers have the choice of National Insurance For All? Absolutely!

HR 676 would cover every person for all necessary medical care including: long term care such that cancer demands prescription drugs hospital surgical outpatient services primary and preventive care emergency services dental mental health home health physical therapy rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) vision care hearing services including hearing aids chiropractic durable medical equipment * palliative care

A family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs.

HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments. HR 676 would save hundreds of billions annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and HMOs.

National Health Insurance http://www.healthcare-now.org/

Doctors for Single Payer http://www.pnhp.org/

Unions for HR 676 http://unionsforsinglepayerhr676.org/union_endorsers

Organizations and Government Bodies Endorsing HR 676 http://www.pnhp.org/action/organizations_and_government_bodies_endorsing_hr_676.php

Health Care In the USA http://www.dollarsandsense.org/healthcare.html

Consumer Reports On Health Care http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/health_reform/

National Health Insurance does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits will be based on customer service and clinic performance based on the clients experience. This is my perception of competition.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 7 months ago

Why pay the most expensive medical insurance industry in the world anything?

Never never never forget… It is the private medical insurance industry that cancels YOUR medical insurance AFTER taking YOUR MONEY for years. Years and hundreds of thousands dollars later no one has any guarantee of any coverage.

Not only that if an employer makes a switch there is no guarantee any coverage or same coverage will be available.

Face it what wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too many healthy citizens pay out to insurance companies in a 12 month period they would never spend that much in 12 months no way jose'... with very very few exceptions. So why are we giving a middle man so much money? What's the point?

Paying out all that money is no guarantee the most expensive insurance industry will stick with you when the bills come rolling in.

Think about it. It's so many many many working people WITH insurance that are being forced into bankruptcy. Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz0IQKZLHHh&C

Why pay the most expensive insurance industry on the planet anything?

KSManimal 5 years, 7 months ago

The writer complains of tax breaks....written in by Democrats.

Why is it that the right wing LOVES tax breaks....unless they're written in by Democrats...in which case tax breaks are horribly unfair and serve only to add to our national debt?

I've been asking this same question for about nine years, and have yet to be answered...by anyone from the right... (and don't confuse "response" and/or "reaction" with "answer").

jafs 5 years, 7 months ago

  1. It makes complete sense for the federal government to help with increased Medicaid costs if states don't have enough money to do so.

  2. The difference between $21,000 and $25,000 is small (about $300/mth) compared to the overall costs (around $2,000/mth). And these are expensive plans - we get health insurance for about $4,000/YEAR. Calling a $21,000/year plan high-value is kind of silly.

  3. That is a problem - I would like to see the government stop taking care of businesses.

Brent Garner 5 years, 7 months ago

Jafs: Taking your first point. IF the feds are going to do it for a small number of states why isn't that an unfair burden on the other states? Shouldn't they do it for all states?

Your second point. The issue is not how you define a "high value plan". The issue is that some states' citizens won't be taxed at the same value point as other states' citizens. Remember, this is supposed to be a national plan in which we all participate equally. Doesn't sound equal to me.

Brent Garner 5 years, 7 months ago

KSManimal : About tax breaks. The point I was trying to make in my LTE, and which you obviously failed to grasp, is the uneveness of this. Democrats howled about "tax breaks for the rich" but think it is perfectly alright to write in "tax breaks for democrats". So which is more odious?

Flap Doodle 5 years, 7 months ago

What's the difference between HR 676 and a peach pit lodged in a mandrill's bowels? The peach pit has a chance of being passed.

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 7 months ago

Then of course you have to worry about that etc.,etc.,etc. stuff as well.

What's up with that BK?

Am I on the wrong thread?

Jimo 5 years, 7 months ago

"So, if this passes, Kansans will have to find more money ..."

Wow. So much for E Pluribus Unum.

Do you suppose there was a lot of inquiry on 9/11 which state people were living?

"And I could go on."

No, I think you've opened your mouth enough for everyone to see the real you.

Brent Garner 5 years, 7 months ago

Jimo: Attempting to equate this disastrous healthcare bill with 9/11 is disingenuous at best. They are not equal. Further, I am not certain what specifically about 9/11 you are referring to. If you are referring to the outpouring of VOLUNTARY assistance sent by people from all of the country that is one thing. However, the "taxes" in this healthcare bill are not voluntary. They are mandatory. Our legislature here struggles every year to find the money to pay Kansas current medicare costs. This bill will increase that cost with no countering compensation from the feds. Yet, at the same time, certain states will receive countering compensation. If you don't find that egregous then I suppose you won't find anything egregous, except maybe conservatives objecting to this vast grab at socialism.

tbaker 5 years, 7 months ago

I whole-heartedly agree our country needs its health care system reformed. Where I have trouble with the idea is the stubborn mindset which holds only the federal government can be the principal instrument to accomplish this reform. Only another massive expenditure of borrowed money and another gigantic entitlement program we cannot afford will solve our problems. On I could go about the federal government’s stunning track record of abject failure when it comes to entitlement spending. In just a few short years, our national debt will exceed our GDP. No one even mentions much less includes the cost of the interest that will have to be paid – on top of the expense of operating another huge entitlement program. The fiscal calamity that awaits this country scares me to death. The health care plans currently being discussed are simply suicidal. That’s why I am at a complete loss to explain why on Earth sane people would even be discussing such a reckless proposition without FIRST trying everything they could to resolve our health care problems in a way that doesn’t cost anything. Perhaps I would even join the heard of lemmings headed for the cliff, and get on the tax and spend band wagon if there were at least a token attempt at addressing some meaningful “free” reforms. Sadly, there isn’t. This forces me to ponder why, when facing financial Armageddon, our congress won’t give these no-brianer ideas the slightest consideration. Not long into such reflection a person has to ask if this insanity is really about improving our health care, or is it about something else.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.