Health Care Reform - Online Guide
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Budget Neutral Health Care Proposal ? ? ?
<font size="3">
<center>A Budget Neutral Health Care Proposal ? ? ?</center>
A health care proposal co-sponsored by Senators Robert Bennett, R-Utah and Ron Wyden, D-Oregon and supported by a bi-partisan group of 12 co-sponsors including five Republicans, one Independent and six Democrats, known as the Healthy Americans Act (S.391) and commonly referred to as Bennett-Wyden for the two lead sponsors, is presently circulating in the Senate.
The Congressional Budget Office ("CBO") has stated that its "preliminary analysis indicates that the proposal would be roughly budget-neutral" when fully implemented in 2014, and "would be essentially self-financing." And, the CBO ultimately concludes that the Healthy Americans Act might be a moneymaker for the federal treasury:
Is this possible ??? How ??? An article in FactCheck.com explains it this way:
A summary of the Healthy Americans Act can be found here.
The full text of the Healthy Americans act can be found here.
The Congressional Budget Office's Explanation of the Act can be found here.
Another explanation of the Act which promises universal, private health insurance for ALL Americans can be found here.
For those who read it, Wikipedia's discussion of the Act can be found here.
</font size><font size="5"><center>Is this something you could support ? ? ?
WHY ? ? ?
WHY NOT ? ? ?
</font size></center>
</font size>
<font size="3">
<center>A Budget Neutral Health Care Proposal ? ? ?</center>
A health care proposal co-sponsored by Senators Robert Bennett, R-Utah and Ron Wyden, D-Oregon and supported by a bi-partisan group of 12 co-sponsors including five Republicans, one Independent and six Democrats, known as the Healthy Americans Act (S.391) and commonly referred to as Bennett-Wyden for the two lead sponsors, is presently circulating in the Senate.
The Congressional Budget Office ("CBO") has stated that its "preliminary analysis indicates that the proposal would be roughly budget-neutral" when fully implemented in 2014, and "would be essentially self-financing." And, the CBO ultimately concludes that the Healthy Americans Act might be a moneymaker for the federal treasury:
"our preliminary analysis indicates that the health insurance proposal you asked us to analyze would achieve a rough balance between additional Federal outlays and additional Federal revenues in 2014. The net impact of this proposal reflects the largely offsetting effects of much larger gross changes in Federal revenues and outlays in that year . . . total Federal outlays for health insurance premiums in 2014 would be on the order of $1.3 trillion to $1.4 trillion.
Those costs would be approximately offset by revenues and savings from several sources: premium payments collected from individuals through their tax returns; revenue raised by replacing the current tax exclusion for health insurance with an income tax deduction; new tax payments by employers to the Federal government; Federal savings on Medicaid and SCHIP; and state maintenance-of-effort payments of their savings from Medicaid and SCHIP. … For the years after 2014, we anticipate that the fiscal impact would improve gradually, so that the proposal would tend to become more than self-financing and thereby would reduce future budget deficits or increase future surpluses."
Those costs would be approximately offset by revenues and savings from several sources: premium payments collected from individuals through their tax returns; revenue raised by replacing the current tax exclusion for health insurance with an income tax deduction; new tax payments by employers to the Federal government; Federal savings on Medicaid and SCHIP; and state maintenance-of-effort payments of their savings from Medicaid and SCHIP. … For the years after 2014, we anticipate that the fiscal impact would improve gradually, so that the proposal would tend to become more than self-financing and thereby would reduce future budget deficits or increase future surpluses."
Is this possible ??? How ??? An article in FactCheck.com explains it this way:
- <font size="3">The Wyden-Bennett proposal would change the mainly employer-provided insurance system. </font size>
- <font size="3">Many health care premiums now paid directly to insurance companies would instead flow through the federal budget. </font size>
- <font size="3">Instead of contributing toward employees’ health insurance, employers would increase workers’ pay, and workers earning less than $125,000 a year ($250,000 for couples) would get a federal tax deduction. </font size>
- <font size="3">Those who don’t have employer-sponsored insurance also get the deduction. </font size>
- <font size="3">The effect of this would be a tax increase on workers making more than $250,000 and a tax subsidy for low- and moderate-income workers who don’t currently have health insurance, according to an analysis by the Lewin Group.</font size>
A summary of the Healthy Americans Act can be found here.
The full text of the Healthy Americans act can be found here.
The Congressional Budget Office's Explanation of the Act can be found here.
Another explanation of the Act which promises universal, private health insurance for ALL Americans can be found here.
For those who read it, Wikipedia's discussion of the Act can be found here.
</font size><font size="5"><center>Is this something you could support ? ? ?
WHY ? ? ?
WHY NOT ? ? ?
</font size></center>
</font size>
Re: Budget Neutral Health Care Proposal ? ? ?
Seems like what we have now, the only change is that the Government gets its cut before the insurance companies...who would then raise premiums or find some other way to screw the patients. Someone is getting a kickback from this; there are too many self serving Republicans and Conservadems on board for this to be beneficial for the common man.....this is all my personal interpretation/opinion, however.
Healthy Americans Act - Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI), which is: (1) a plan offered by a state; or (2) an employer-sponsored health coverage plan. Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll.
Establishes standardized coverage and state options for HAPI plans. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate guidelines concerning the benefits, items, and services to be covered. Sets forth requirements for setting premiums. Requires the Secretary to establish the Healthy America Advisory Committee to provide annual recommendations concerning modifications to the benefits, items, and services required.
Provides for school-based health centers.
Authorizes states to establish and operate a State Choices for Long-Term Care Program. (So...individual states get to decide who to keep covered over the long term....the rich....mmmm 'death panels')
Requires the Secretary to establish Chronic Care Education Centers.
Requires states to establish or designate a state Health Help Agency to carry out the administration of HAPI plans and to promote prevention and wellness for residents.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to require employers and individuals to each make shared responsibility payments for HAPI plan premiums.
Sets forth requirements for health insurance issuers offering a HAPI plan. (Which are....?)
Establishes the Healthy Americans Public Health Trust Fund for the payment of: (1) premium subsidies; and (2) bonuses to states for implementing medical malpractice reform.
Terminates federal health benefits coverage, including coverage provided under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
Seems like what we have now, the only change is that the Government gets its cut before the insurance companies...who would then raise premiums or find some other way to screw the patients. Someone is getting a kickback from this; there are too many self serving Republicans and Conservadems on board for this to be beneficial for the common man.....this is all my personal interpretation/opinion, however.
Similar threads
