Obama signs health care bill: Who won't be covered?

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Posted: Mar 24, 2010 10:03 AM EDT

By Mark Trumbull

The health care bill signed by President Obama Tuesday will extend medical coverage to millions of Americans who are now uninsured -- but not to everyone.

Who won't get coverage under the law?

Among the still-uninsured will be illegal immigrants, plus people who choose to avoid the law's mandate to buy insurance -- and pay a penalty as a result. It will also include some middle-class families who decide they can't afford coverage despite subsidies offered under the law. Depending on what insurance would cost, they may or may not owe a penalty.

Healthcare 101: What the bill means to you

Signs indicate that some 23 million Americans will lack insurance in 2019, after key provisions of the law have been in effect for as long as five or six years, according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate. Meanwhile, the law would insure some 32 million people who otherwise would be uninsured in that year.

Those amount to ballpark guesses. But the estimates hint at an important general point, say health-policy experts: The law will extend an insurance net that is broad but far from universal.

Just how many people remain uninsured will depend on a few key factors. One is how regulators turn the law's broad provisions into specific rules governing insurance markets. Another is how individual Americans respond to the law. A smaller factor is how the Senate handles a pending "reconciliation" that could affect the shape of reforms.

Here are some groups who may lack insurance under the Obama law:

• Undocumented immigrants. This group won't be eligible for Medicaid or insurance subsidies on a healthcare exchange. In 2019, the CBO estimates, unauthorized immigrants will represent about 2 percent of a nonelderly population of 282 million people (or a bit less than 6 million people).

• People who don't sign up for Medicaid. The law will expand the ranks of those eligible for Medicaid to include people with incomes up to 33 percent above the official poverty line. But not all those eligible for Medicaid actually enroll.

• People who opt out, including younger workers. People who lack other coverage (Medicaid or employer-based coverage) will face a new mandate to purchase insurance. But some -- perhaps a group skewed toward younger and single Americans -- will choose to pay an annual penalty of $695 dollars or 2.5 percent of income, rather than a larger amount for insurance. The penalties would be capped at $2,250 per family as of 2016.

• People who feel insurance is unaffordable. This is similar to the "opt out," except that they may not owe a penalty. If insurance coverage would cost more than 8 percent of household income, people won't face a penalty for going without it. The law would provide subsidies that would assist people up to about four times the poverty level. For a family of four, that means federal assistance will phase out above about $88,000 in income.

Of course, lots of people find insurance unaffordable right now -- a key reason that Obama has pushed for reform. "Hopefully there won't be as many people [in that group] because of the subsidies," says Judith Solomon, a healthcare expert at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington.

Most of the people who now lack insurance, she notes, will qualify for either subsidies or for Medicaid under the law. The Senate reconciliation process will affect how large the insurance subsidies are and how much federal help people can get with other out-of-pocket expenses.

Many families will choose to buy insurance even though they have to spend more than 8 percent of income. Another option people have -- if 8 percent of income won't buy a full insurance plan -- is to buy high-deductible catastrophic coverage, Ms. Solomon says. (People age 26 or younger can opt for those catastrophic plans under the law, regardless of their income level, she adds.)

Ninety-four percent of all nonelderly Americans will be insured under the Obama plan, estimates the CBO, the nonpartisan scorekeeper for legislation. The agency also figures that 5 million Americans will buy coverage without any subsidy, choosing from policies offered on a new government-regulated exchange. For those who do get subsidies, the average amount granted will be $6,000 in 2019, the CBO estimates.

also ..http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...reform-bill-101-Who-gets-subsidized-insurance
 
Last edited:

FIS53

Veteran Expediter
The costs of health insurance are high there. Up here the payroll deduction is a nice small 2% so much more affordable. Since all employees of a company pay this it means quite a bit of money put into the health system although just as in the US costs are spiraling out of sight.
I suppose there will be a business opportunity for someone to start organizations for small businesses to join to make it so they have better buying power to afford coverage.
Rob
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
The costs of health insurance are high there. Up here the payroll deduction is a nice small 2% so much more affordable. Since all employees of a company pay this it means quite a bit of money put into the health system although just as in the US costs are spiraling out of sight.
I suppose there will be a business opportunity for someone to start organizations for small businesses to join to make it so they have better buying power to afford coverage.
Rob

By the news I am hearing Corporate America is doing just that adapting to the new rules....IF only they would have left the forced part out somehow, this would be more easier to swallow.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
This article may have already been posted. If so, here it is again:

Dow Jones Newswires | Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees."
Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.

The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.

"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year."

Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured Americans would result in higher insurance costs for those employers that already provide coverage. Opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation.

A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.

Caterpillar noted that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and the value of health care for patients as well as lower costs for employer-sponsored insurance coverage.

"Unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House and Senate, nor the president's proposal, meets these goals," the letter said.
Caterpillar: Health care bill would cost it $100M - Chicago Breaking Business

$100 MILLION DOLLARS For the first year alone - That amounts to 2000 jobs at $50K per job. At about the same time CAT made this announcement they also said 120 workers were being laid off at their Clayton, NC plant.

How's that Hope and Change working out?
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Yea that's true, it is tax deductible when there is money, but for the employee, it isn't deductible.

To be exact they screwed with the threshold of when you can write off your medical expenses.

They added new prescription taxes (adding to the cost of health care) - we pay

They increased medical equipment taxes (adding to the cost of health care) - we pay

They added a tax on health care premiums - we pay

Let's not forget to mention some of the things that are in the bills, one of them is a change to the IRS that allows them to disallow write off if there isn't solid evidence - meaning that in our business it may be we will pay a lot more taxes.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I know it's early yet, and we still don't know what's in the bill even after congress having passed it - but I'd like to see someone with a qualified eye take a good look at the final result and determine how this legislation will effect the typical owner/operator that drives a straight truck for a company like Express-1 or Panther; also, perhaps a fleet owner that might have a dozen trucks with a couple of different companies. I have a hunch that these typical small businessmen are going to get killed by this mess when their govt. mandated costs go up and their rates don't rise in proportion.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yea that's true, it is tax deductible when there is money, but for the employee, it isn't deductible.

To be exact they screwed with the threshold of when you can write off your medical expenses.

They added new prescription taxes (adding to the cost of health care) - we pay

They increased medical equipment taxes (adding to the cost of health care) - we pay

They added a tax on health care premiums - we pay

Let's not forget to mention some of the things that are in the bills, one of them is a change to the IRS that allows them to disallow write off if there isn't solid evidence - meaning that in our business it may be we will pay a lot more taxes.

All good points, and remember the govt. figures were made on the basis of pie-in-the-sky revenue predictions based on an optimum economic conditions for the next 10-20 years. Just wait until the cost of this bill (if it doesn't get repealed or drastically changed before 2013) goes viral like Medicare did. Medicare's cost for the first year 1966 was $3 Billion; their projected cost for 1990 was $12 Billion. The actual cost for 1990 turned out to be $109 Billion. Remember - they are from the govt. and they're here to help us.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Well 2011 will be the year of taxes and may slip back into a deep recession.

The bush tax changes are going away, the cap gains will hit 39.5% again, then tightening up of IRS rules, the tightening up on banking regulations and the Wallstreet target - next year will be sad because we are in the middle of a recession and a false recovery.

When you come down to it, this should have been put on the back burner while congress and our great president should have been pushing for jobs.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The bigger problem that is tangential to Barack Hussein Obama's agenda is the complacency and gullibility of the American public. With the MSM being the willing accomplice for the Obama agenda, it cannot be taken for granted the public's memory will last until November.

Thomas Sowell has a great article on this very subject and offers us all a possible look into the future:

"The ruthless and corrupt way this bill was forced through Congress on a party-line vote, and in defiance of public opinion, provides a road map for how other "historic" changes can be imposed by Obama, Pelosi and Reid."

Thomas Sowell

I often like to repeat the warmup exercise we used to do in typing class(for those who remember what "typing" was):

NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR COUNTRY

Instead of organizing mass marches on Washington, consider helping organize a mass march on voting booths in November to vote against ANY incumbent Democrat.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I know it's early yet, and we still don't know what's in the bill even after congress having passed it...
That's exactly it - we, nor the Congress who passed it, really know what's in the bill, which is now a law.

Remember a few years back when Congress and President Clinton, in a classic case of a Liberal warm and fuzzy feel good moment, signed a bill into law that said if you've ever been convicted of any type of spousal abuse, then you could not own a firearm. Instantly, thousands of law enforcement and security personnel were either out of a job or were reassigned to desk duty. Whoops.

And that was just a simple, one paragraph, plainly stated in plain English, bill. Imagine what we'll find in the Health Care Bill that no one knew about, imagine the unintended consequences of an untold number provisions buried deep within the mind-boggling complexity of this bill's language.

It boggles the mind, I tell you.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I usually don't copy and paste entire articles, but this one from the Wall Street Journal is short and to the point:

Massachusetts Is Our Future

By TIMOTHY P. CAHILL

White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod hailed the Massachusetts health-care program as "the template" for the national health-care reform legislation the president signed into law earlier this week. That should be cause for serious concern about this law's ability to improve our health-care system at an affordable cost.
As state treasurer, I can speak with authority about the Massachusetts pilot program. It has been a fiscal train wreck.
The universal insurance coverage we adopted in 2006 was projected to cost taxpayers $88 million a year. However, since this program was adopted in 2006, our health-care costs have in total exceeded $4 billion. The cost of Massachusetts' plan has blown a hole in the Commonwealth's budget. Just last Thursday, Gov. Deval Patrick's office announced a $294 million shortfall related to health-care costs.
If not for federal Medicaid reimbursements and commitments from Washington to prop up this plan, Massachusetts would be broke. The only reason MassCare has survived is that we have been repeatedly bailed out by the federal government. But that raises the question: Who will bail America out if we implement a similar program?
While everyone should have access to affordable health care, our experience in Massachusetts tells us that the new federal entitlement will burden future taxpayers with unfunded liabilities they cannot afford. Health-care inflation will continue. Mandates will increase insurance premiums. And the deficit will reach frightening levels as the law's costs greatly exceed the projections of its advocates.
As lawmakers push for changes in the bill, they should start by being honest about its costs and focus on making health care more affordable without bankrupting the country.

WSJ Symposium on ObamaCare
Mitch Daniels: We Good Europeans
Mike Pence: This Law Will Not Stand
Phil Gramm: Resistance Is Not Futile
Timothy P. Cahill: Massachusetts Is Our Future
Bobby Jindal: Persistence Is the Key

There's your look into the crystal ball folks. These programs' costs are never anywhere near the politicians' projections. History has repeated itself once again, with politicians making the same fiscal mistakes trying to bribe the population with the taxpayers' money. For those of us in the South, refer also to TennCare in Tennessee - an embarassing fiscal and social failure attempted several years ago by a liberal Democrat Gov. with a good sales pitch and a majority in the state house and senate.
To paraphrase Gov. Bobby Jindal from his article linked above, the Republicans should not just be the "party of no" when it comes to this bill - they should be the party of "Hell No".
 
Top