August 2006 Weddings
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
AMA Voice for the Uninsured
I just heard a commercial from the AMA touting their plan for healthcare and to help the uninsured. Since healthcare is one issue I have been trying to get a better understanding on from both candidates I did check out the site.
The three pillars of the AMA proposal:
- helping people buy health insurance through tax credits or vouchers,
- individual choice of health insurance, and
- fair rules of the game?regulating markets and protecting high-risk patients.
Details can be read at http://www.voicefortheuninsured.org/index.html
Re: AMA Voice for the Uninsured
Interesting, thanks.
I read that McCain wants to make it easier for people to have choices and select their own health care. However, the downside of that is, if he takes away the employer tax exemption (or whatever it's called), employers may be less likely to offer their insurance. Most people would have to choose their own plans... if the critics of his plan are correct.
Obama, on the other hand, wants to strengthen employer-based health care coverage and fill in the gaps with a more national plan. The only problem with that is that I read that he wants to institute a "pay or play" tax where businesses either provide health care coverage or pay a tax. Some critics of the Obama plan say that some businesses would rather pay the one-time tax than take a chance on health care.
There are also some businesses that would just put its people on the national plan, not wanting to give them the better private plan.
I think my chances of keeping my health care coverage are much better with McCain. This is the defining issue for me. I can't take a chance of our health care coverage getting screwed up, not with a husband who had a heart transplant. (yearly clinic visits and 7 meds for life)
I have not studied McCain's health plan as closely as Obama's but I know McCain wants credits and to make employer paid health insurance premiums taxable to people. But then they would be able to take the credits.
Obama's is more subsizided based. Another poster told me it would be similar to what Massachusetts has done. So I did visit the website for the MA Dept of Health and read some articles from their local newspapers to get a better idea. The thing that scares me about Obama's plan is its costs. Even his campaign can't give definitive costs or explain in full how it will be paid. And if you research the MA plan you will find the costs are much more than they anticipated and they are having to lower the amount they subsidize as well as cut benefits.
Yes it would be nice to ensure everyone has health care but I just don't think as a nation it is feasible without everyone seeing tax increases. But hey that is just my opinion!
I'd rather have good health care coverage for most (and none for some) than bad for all. You know that your coverage would have to be less if everyone were insured, or you'd be paying such high premiums it'd be ridiculous.
In my view, if Obama got his way everybody would be able to go to the doctor for sniffles and other minor ailments, but once you had a desperate health issue like my husband did, you'd be out of luck.
I'm curious why you think this. I'm not trying to start a fight - rather, I've been trying to get info from conservatives all week on McCain's plan because I want to understand it better. I think the problem with Obama's plan is that it will cost way too much so I'm trying to understand the alternatives.
Most states don't protect individuals who buy in the individual market. People with pre-existing conditions are basically uninsurable, unless they are on an employer plan, or live in a state with laws that protect them. My understanding of McCain's plan is that he wants to do two things:
1. encourage people to go off employer plans
2. deregulate everything so you can buy insurance across state lines
The problem with deregulation, as I see it, is that it encourages insurance companies to move to states with the weakest laws. Since they don't make money covering sick people, they have no incentive to stay in a state that will force them to cover sick people.
I have been wanting somebody to explain to me the benefits of deregulation, or explain to me how sick people are going to be protected under McCain's plan.
I really don't have a problem with people moving from employer plans to indidivual plans, but without protection for sick people, I don't understand how his proposal will work? Or is there something to protect sick people and enable them to buy individual plans if their employers drop coverage.
What I like about Obama's plan is that by creating a few competitive national plans, nobody is buying in the individual market and everybody is risk pooling, so the sick will never have to worry about getting insurance.
I know I'm not going to change your mind on your candidate, but I just wanted to throw this info out there and get your thoughts.
And if anyone else wants to explain why deregulation is a good idea, please do! I'm really curious (even though I'm leaving in a half hour for the night so I probably won't respond until tomorrow).
Here's two really good articles on McCain's plan.
Obviously they are lefty sources, but I worked in health insurance law for a while and I think they are pretty reasonable and fair, and summarize the prevailing wisdom of why McCain's plan is so faulty.
On employers dropping coverage
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?em
On deregulation:
http://www.slate.com/id/2191699/
Like I said before, Obama's plan concerns me because I think it's way too costly. I think HRC's plan had more cost controls in it but even then I think they both have their flaws. But central to their vision in these plans are protecting people with pre-existing conditions, which to me, is the fundamental problem in insurance. I haven't seen anything from McCain suggesting how he's going to help those with pre-exes and rather, everything I've seen seems to suggest those people will be the worst off.
Again, I'm not trying to change your mind. But since you said this is the most important issue for you, I just wanted to share this info.
And I'm really trying to understand what the perks of de-regulation is, so please, give me anything you've read otherwise.
I read both articles and like Obama's I just get more confused. But there was something in one of the article's that caught my attention.
It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are going to have to pay taxes on that money,? said Sherry Glied, an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University?s Mailman School of Public Health.
Why would an estimate be made? Every year I get a handout that breaks down how much I pay and how much my employer is paying. I also have 3 plans I can choose from - an EPO, a PPO and an HMO so it lists the breakdowns for each. It just seems to me most employers know a per employee cost.
I did find another article from cnn.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/29/mccain.healthcare/
I don't know how they come with the costs but it says it would cost $3.6 trillion over 10 years and would be paid for by the increase in taxes employers would pay after losing their health care costs as a deduction.
Article also talks about Clinton's plan which it says would cost $110 billion annually and would be paid for by eliminating the Bush tax cuts on those who make over $250,000.
Which now leads me to ask does anyone know how much tax revenue will be generated by eliminating those Bush tax cuts?
Sibil,
I just researched my plan. And no the credits would not cover the entire cost if I had to pick up the entire cost of the insurance as opposed to my employer paying 70% while I pay 30%.
But the question also becomes do we expect government to pay 100% of everyone's healthcare.
I admit I come out better if we leave things just the way they are. I pay a total of $2340 per year for me & my son (of course my cost wouldn't change if I had 10 kids but that is another issue). If I have to pay 100% it would be $7932 per year with only a $5000 credit. So $2340 vs. $2932. And as it stands now the $2340 is paid with pre-tax dollars.
But here are a couple of questions with this. My federal income tax liability doesn't come close to $5000 per year so I am thinking this is not going to be a refundable credit. So once my tax liability is zero that will be it. I could be wrong since I don't see that in the details.
On the other hand would his plan allow me to customize or pick a better plan so I am paying just for me & my son - two people instead of me & children no matter how many that is. Maybe my premiums would decrease? I could also choose a higher deductilbe since currently it is $500 and that could decrease my premiums.
I can see a benefit of a more personalized plan helping some people.
Another thing I have not been able to find out from McCain's plan is would these premiums which now become taxable income will they be taxable for social security & medicare? That would suck. If they are only taxable for federal income tax that is more bearable and it wouldn't cost the employers more in payroll taxes as I have seen argued in other posts. But his plan doesn't say. Considering the condition of SS & medicare collecting more taxes for the funds would benefit the government.
Here's my guess - if the cost of the premiums changes during the year and it pushes employees into different tax brackets? Or maybe because the insurance costs can change during the year, employees won't know how to set their withholdings? Don't know, I'm not really certain...
Excellent question about SS taxes and the like. I would assume so because otherwise it seems like it would be an accounting and payroll nightmare.
As to Sibil's question, the tax credit is $2500 for individuals and $5000 for families. Most employer health insurance plans cost more than $200ish for an individual and $400ish for families. The ones I've been on have hovered around $300-$400 a month, just for me. So my taxes would go up significantly.
To put it in perspective, Bush proposed a similar plan in 2007 with a $10k credit and that failed, and one of the concerns was that it would be an increase of taxes because some families monthly premiums are more than $800 or $900 a month.
soontobeka just posted these really useful looking links over on E08. They look dense, so I probably won't get into them today, but if anyone is interested...
here is the link to a very recent piece by McCain on his vision for healthcare.
http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/mccain.pdf
here is the link to a piece by Obama on his vision for healthcare
http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/obama.pdf