Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info
TOPIC: "Health bill spreads the pain, benefits" (Richard Wolf and Alison Young, USA Today, 3/23/10)+ More summaries (USA Today)


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
"Health bill spreads the pain, benefits" (Richard Wolf and Alison Young, USA Today, 3/23/10)+ More summaries (USA Today)
Permalink  
 


This article provides a good summary from various stakeholders' perspective.

Read the full article @ USA Today

usat_logo2.gif

(Emphasis added)
"
Health bill spreads the pain, benefits


By Richard Wolf and Alison Young, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Unlike most of the laws Congress passes each year, the massive health care bill President Obama signed Tuesday is destined to affect nearly all American families.

Poor adults will get Medicaid. Low-income families will get federal subsidies to buy insurance. Small businesses will get tax credits. Children will be able to stay on parents' policies until they turn 26. Seniors will gain additional prescription-drug coverage. People with medical conditions will gain peace of mind because insurers have to cover them. (Emphasis added)

On the other hand, the wealthy will pay higher taxes to help finance the 10-year, roughly $940 billion cost. Businesses with 50 or more workers will have to insure them or pay a penalty. Individuals, too, will have to pay a fine if they don't buy insurance. Premiums could rise for some people. Seniors with Medicare Advantage policies could lose those plans or pay more to keep them.

When congressional leaders said "health care for all," they didn't mean it literally. The Congressional Budget Office projects that millions will remain uninsured by refusing to comply with the new mandate, or because the new federal assistance just isn't enough. [snip] (Emphasis added)

"Because of the way in which this is set up, there's lots of tangible benefits delivered to people, but the pain is very well distributed," says Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health care research group. "While there are some losers, there aren't any big losers." (Emphasis added)

Katie Naranjo, 23, is a winner. She was dropped from her parents' health insurance policy last June after she graduated from the University of Texas. She says she now pays $411 a month for a private policy — more than her rent — and is excited about the possibility of getting back on her parents' policy.

"That monthly cost is a significant portion of my monthly salary," said Naranjo, who runs a small Internet marketing firm in Austin with friends, and campaigned for the health overhaul as president of the College Democrats of America.

Donald Bowles should be a winner, too. The self-employed Oklahoma City man and his wife can't afford insurance on an income that's usually below $30,000 a year, often much lower. They seldom go to a doctor. When they do, it's often a free clinic.

Bowles, 51, doesn't want the government's help. He'd rather take his chances and fend for himself. "I won't take Medicaid, and I will not pay the fine. They'll give me good health benefits in prison, I believe," he quips. "If you can't provide for yourself, why should everyone else provide for you?"

Here's a look at how six groups will be affected:

The uninsured

The Congressional Budget Office projects that 32 million Americans will gain health insurance under the law, beginning in 2014.

The poorest adults — those below 133% of the federal poverty level, or about $29,327 for a family of four — will qualify for Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor and people with disabilities. Children already qualify at that income level.

Currently, only seven states offer Medicaid to adults without children, says Ron Pollack of Families USA, a consumer advocacy group. The median income eligibility level for that group is 69% of poverty — less than $7,500 for a single person and about $15,200 for a family of four. Many states are significantly lower than that.

Lower-income people who don't qualify for Medicaid will get federal subsidies to help them buy coverage from new state insurance exchanges — organized marketplaces that encourage competition.

Those eligible for the subsidies could have income up to 400% of the poverty level, or $88,200 for a family of four. Those at 133% of poverty will get the most assistance, those at 400% the least, both for premium assistance and benefits.

The premiums will range from 2% to 9.5% of family income, and the poorest families will pay the least. Those families also will have the smallest co-payments — 6%, ranging up to 30% for the top of the income bracket, Pollack says.

"For a lot of people, this bill is going to give them the ability to purchase health insurance, where today they can't afford it," says Len Nichols, director of the Center for Health Policy Research and Ethics at George Mason University in Virginia. [snip]

Medicare beneficiaries

There's good news and bad news for seniors. AARP, the nation's largest seniors organization, says most should benefit from a number of provisions.

First is the notorious "doughnut hole" that affects about one in eight Medicare recipients — the coverage gap in the Medicare prescription-drug program created in 2006. Now, seniors whose total drug costs reach $2,830 must pay for all their drugs until they have spent $4,550. The new law will close that gap.

This year, seniors who reach the coverage gap will be eligible for a one-time, $250 rebate. Starting next year, brand-name drug prices will be discounted 50% during the coverage gap period. Every year until 2020, the discount will be increased, until the benefit reaches 75% of the cost.

The measure includes other benefits for seniors, including free preventive services such as cancer screenings and funding for states to improve community services for people with disabilities.

Yet seniors who use Medicare Advantage plans — private plans combining hospital, physician and drug coverage — could see their premiums increased or benefits reduced. That's because the law reduces Medicare payments to those plans. About 23% of Medicare beneficiaries are in those plans.

The law extracts about $500 billion over 10 years from the future growth rate of Medicare, bringing it down from 6.6% to about 6%, says John Rother of AARP. In doing so, it extends the life of the program for nine years, which relieves some pressure to cut benefits or increase premiums.

Upper-income taxpayers

If a law costs nearly $100 billion a year, someone has to pay. In this case, that mostly means the wealthy.

If the Senate passes the package of changes, the biggest tax increases will come in Medicare payroll taxes. Those take two forms, both starting in 2013:

• Single people earning more than $200,000 and couples starting at $250,000 will pay 0.9 percentage points more on their wages and self-employment income.

• For people at those income levels, all their investment earnings will be taxed 3.8%, marking the first time the hospital insurance tax has hit non-wage income.

The other major tax increase hits the most generous health plans. Those don't apply just to upper-income people. State employees and other union workers have won excellent health coverage in recent years rather than big pay increases.

Starting in 2018, family insurance plans valued at more than $27,500 will pay a 40% tax above that level.

The goal is for employers to reduce the "Cadillac" benefits, rather than pay the tax.

Young adults

Young adults will be among the early beneficiaries of the law, which requires insurers to extend parental coverage to children until they turn 26.

About 30% of the uninsured are between the ages of 19 and 29, the highest rate of any age group, says Tanya Schwartz, a policy analyst with the Kaiser Family Foundation.

[snip]

Beginning in 2014, young adults will be required to purchase insurance or face tax penalties. Those will be phased in, reaching $695 per year by 2016 for an individual or 2.5% of household income, whichever is larger. Young adults will be eligible for subsidies, though, if they meet income.

People with health problems

Beginning later this year, insurers will no longer be able to refuse to insure children with pre-existing medical conditions, such as asthma, heart defects or cancer. The provision that allows young adults to stay on their parents' policies longer also helps those with chronic health problems, says Rob Schneider, deputy director of Consumers Union's health care campaign.

Protections for adults with pre-existing conditions won't take effect until 2014, but the legislation calls on federal health officials to create a national high-risk insurance pool program that they can buy from this year. Unlike some existing state high-risk pool programs, which can be expensive, the new program is supposed to keep rates closer to standard premiums paid by healthy people, Pollitz says.

The legislation also prohibits insurance companies from canceling coverage for people who develop costly health problems. It eliminates lifetime caps on covered medical expenses in six months.

"For us, this is life-changing," said Beth Sufian, a 44-year-old attorney who has cystic fibrosis and directs a legal hotline for those with disease.

Every week, dozens of people call for advice because they were denied insurance coverage on the private market for their chronic lung disease, which can cost $80,000 a year to treat. "This reform bill is just going to free people up to have the choices people without chronic illnesses have," she says.

People with employer-sponsored insurance

People who have good health coverage through their employer can keep it, Schwartz says. Many employer plans already meet minimum federal coverage requirements.

They also will get additional protections such as the end of lifetime coverage limits.

For employees who lose their jobs, beginning in 2014 they can buy affordable insurance through the health care exchanges. The insurance will have to meet minimum coverage standards.

The law will require a percentage of health care premiums go for care and improving quality, rather than toward marketing or administrative overhead. For large group insurance plans, at least 85% of premiums must go for care or quality improvement; otherwise, money will get rebated to policyholders, according to Families USA.

Although the legislation provides the framework, many of the details still must be hashed out in the coming months and years as federal health officials write the rules needed to carry out the changes.

"It's going to be a huge challenge," Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius says.

"

Read the full article @ USA Today


-- Edited by Sanders on Wednesday 24th of March 2010 01:38:27 AM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 

The above is an excellent summary; the best one I came across so far.

I will add to the above summary from the viewpoint of Employers with < 50 employees and Employers with => 50 employees.  (This is my notes - my version of the summary - from reading a LOT of specifics from a lot of sources, some of which are not publicly accessible).

Effective January 1, 2014

SMALL employer [Employer with < 50 employees ]

  • No requirement to provide health care insurance nor pay penalty if you do not
  • Eligible to receive tax incentives and credits for offering health care insurance.

LARGE Employer [Employer with =>50 employees]

  • Required to provide insurance OR pay $2,000 per employee in fine  [In that sense, it is technically not a mandate from the viewpoint of the employers anyway]

Cost implications for Employers

  • If a Worker's Individual income < $10,800; Family income < $22,000
    AND
    His/her Employer’s health care plan out-of-pocket expense is > 8% of his/her income
  • he/she can opt-out of employer’s health care plan

If they do,

Employer will need to give that employee a voucher equivalent to the dollar value of Employer contribution on that employee’s health coverage that the employer would have paid on its health plan.

With that voucher, the employee can choose to join the Employer-provided health care plan!!!

OR

Apply for federal subsidy to help defray the cost of purchasing health care insurance.

If they apply for this subsidy, the employer will be notified and will face a penalty of $2,000 per employee.

  • So, it is safer for employer if they ensure cost of health care insurance is < 8% of income for employees with income < $10,800.

------------------------------

Note:  The fines in this Reconciliation Bill are the dollar amounts from the House version of the bill (Senate Bill had put in $750 as the fine and phased in the implementation but House version had it at $2,000 which is what is in the Reconciliation bill) but the House bill also had imprisonment, etc which do NOT seem to be in the Reconciliation bill [please correct me if I am wrong on this. Thanks].


Insurance companies spending a lot of money on marketing and advertising will probably change. More of our insurance premium will actually go towards quality of care. This is good news.

 

Creation of the Health Insurance Exchanges and promoting that competition to keep the cost low for Employers is going to be one of the challenges.


Hope this helps.

If you know more specifics or have more concise information to add, please do. Thanks!



-- Edited by Sanders on Wednesday 24th of March 2010 01:47:55 AM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
"Health bill spreads the pain, benefits" (Richard Wolf and Alison Young, USA Today, 3/23/10)
Permalink  
 


usat_logo2.gif

Read the full article at USA Today

"
Small-business owners unclear on health care impact

By Bruce Horovitz and Laura Petrecca, USA TODAY

[SNIP]

That comment — not understanding what health care reform really means to a business — seems the common reaction from small-business owners. In a nation of more than 29.6 million small businesses with about 58 million employees, it seems less a matter of being for it or against it and more a matter of not understanding what it means for them.

Many also seem to be trying to push the whole issue aside until they can't any longer, even though the bill utterly changes the way small-business owners will purchase and provide health insurance for themselves and their employees. Among those who have more than 50 employees — and who are still trying to survive the fallout of the financial meltdown — some are focusing on the fact that many of the provisions won't kick in until 2014.

[SNIP]

No immediate impact

The health care bill will affect businesses of all sizes — from megacorporations to those with just one or two workers. And it will affect them in dramatically different ways. For instance, provisions exist for companies that have fewer than 10 employees — and for those with fewer than 100.

"For small and medium business owners, the impact is not going to be immediate," says Dave Osterndorf, chief actuary of consulting firm Towers Watson's global health and welfare practice.

A look at some of the provisions and their effects:

For employers

• By 2014, employers who have more than 50 employees must offer health insurance benefits or pay penalties. Companies with 25 or fewer employees who meet certain wage requirements will also be able to get credits toward health insurance purchases.

• By 2014, small-businesses owners, the self-employed and those who don't get work-provided coverage can get benefits through Small Business Health Options Programs (SHOPs). These state-run marketplace exchanges will work with carriers to pool insurance options, with the hope that costs will be lower for a larger, more powerful, group.

Firms will get a one-stop source to find out about insurance, says Shawn Nowicki, director of public policy at HealthPass, a commercial health insurance exchange.

• By 2018, high-end health plans with premiums of more than $10,200 for an individual policy per individual and $27,500 per family — not including vision and dental — would be subjected to a "Cadillac" tax. (The average cost of a family plan in 2009 was $13,375, with employees on average paying $3,515 and employers paying $9,860, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.)

The excise tax would be paid by employers that self-insure (most large firms do) and insurance companies, but small-business experts expect these costs to be passed along to smaller firms via premium increases.

For employees

• Unhappy employees don't have to stay in a job they hate for fear of losing health insurance for themselves or their children.

The new mandates say insurers can't deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions (effective this year for kids and in 2014 for adults). Adults can also buy through SHOP exchanges. Also, insurers can vary premiums based only on a person's age, geographic region and use of tobacco, not on health status.

• Within six months of the bill becoming law, the workers can keep kids on their insurance policies until they're 26.

• Also within six months, lifetime caps on employer-sponsored insurance — often $1 million — would be removed.

Yet, "A small employer that goes from a low lifetime maximum to an unlimited maximum could see a substantial increase in premium costs, as much as 10% to 20%, depending on their history and the rest of the program design," says Osterndorf.

Biggest worries

Even though many parts of the overhaul still have to be sorted out, there are plenty of small-business owners who are already against the plan. Among those is Keith Ashmus, partner at Frantz Ward, a law firm in Cleveland. While his company has long-supported health care reform, he says it's against this one because of what he calls "insufficient attention to cost controls."

He says it will increase premiums for 80 of his 110 employees who participate in the company's health care plan. And he particularly doesn't like the "Cadillac" tax on generous health care plans. "It will be a nightmare to calculate," he says.

There are widely different views on how health care reform will affect entrepreneurship.

Steven Berglas says it'll basically kill it. "Entrepreneurs live in a reactive mode," says Berglas, an executive coach in Los Angeles who has written and taught entrepreneurship.

Creating more bureaucratic regulations for entrepreneurial small-business owners, he says, "is like placing a speed-limit sign in front of a Porsche owner."

But Robert Pasick, a clinical psychologist and executive coach from Ann Arbor, Mich., disagrees.

Pasick, 63, and his wife, Patricia, are both self-employed. Between them, they pay more than $1,700 a month for health insurance. A few years ago, he says, that cost was closer to $500 a month.

He doesn't know how much longer they can afford to be self-employed. "Our biggest expense is our health care," he says. "It's bigger than our mortgage."

"

Read the full article at USA Today

Excuse me, but Cadillac tax is NOT a nightmare to calculate. Every employee's insurance cost is calculated every year  both for employer contribution and employee contribution. This is simply one more column in that spreadsheet, with ONE straight percentage application.

McCain's version of Health Care Reform would have applied such tax on the ENTIRE value of the benefit from the employer. Every single person on their entire value of medical insurance would have been subject to tax. By comparison, Cadillac tax is small. (And, yes, our HC Insurance is very likely subject to Cadillac tax but only in excess over the threshold amount). This is likely the case if you have a good health care insurance coverage from your employer - you will pay a tax for a small portion of it. [This is the Republican idea that got into this plan.]


-- Edited by Sanders on Wednesday 24th of March 2010 01:23:48 AM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 

Read @ USA Today

usat_logo2.gif
"
Chart: Highlights of health care bill




Some of the key changes that House Democrats made to the Senate health care bill:

Issue Context Senate bill House change
Accessibility
Both bills aim to increase Americans' access to health care coverage by expanding Medicaid, providing subsidies to middle-income families and imposing a host of new taxes and fees to pay for it.
Would cost $871 billion in the first 10 years and would provide coverage to 31 million Americans who wouldn't otherwise have it.Would cost $940 billion in the first 10 years and would cover 32 million Americans.
grey.gif
Individual mandateMost Americans would be required to buy health care insurance or face penalties.Those without insurance would pay either $750 per year per person up to $2,250 per family or 2% of household income, whichever is greater. It would be phased in: $95 in 2014, $495 in 2015, and $750 in 2016 or 0.5% of taxable income in 2014, 1.0% of taxable income in 2015 and 2% of taxable income in 2016.The individual penalty would be reduced from $495 to $325 in 2015 and $750 to $695 in 2016, but the alternative penalty on households would increase. The household income assessment would change from 0.5% to 1% in 2014, 1% to 2% in 2015, and 2% to 2.5% for 2016 "and subsequent years to make the assessment more progressive."
grey.gif
Employer mandateEmployers with 50 or more employees would have to pay a fee if they do not provide health coverage.If any of an employer's full-time employees receive federal subsidies to help pay for health coverage, the employer would pay $750 per full-time employee or $3,000 for each employee receiving federal subsidies, whichever is less.The fee would be increased to $2,000 per full-time employee. However, the fee would not be imposed on the company for the first 30 full-time employees.
grey.gif
Medicare prescription drugsBoth bills attempt to address the so-called "doughnut hole." Medicare covers 75% of the first $2,830 in prescription costs, but seniors must pay the full cost after that until out-of-pocket spending reaches $4,550.Beginning this year, the coverage limit would increase by $500 to $3,330 and a 50% discount would apply for certain drugs in the "doughnut hole."Eliminates the proposed $500 increase in the coverage limit, but provides a $250 rebate beginning this year for seniors in the "doughnut hole." By 2020, the "doughnut hole" would be eliminated.
grey.gif
Special state dealsThe Senate bill included federal funds for certain states as part of deals made with individuals senators.Nebraska would be exempt from paying its share of the additional costs all states would incur as a result of expanding Medicaid, a federal-state health care program for the poor and disabled. Louisiana received additional Medicaid funds under a provision that provided extra money for states recovering from a statewide natural disaster.The bill strips the Nebraska money, but provides extra money to all states for residents made eligible for Medicaid under the health care bill. The Louisiana provision remains unchanged.
grey.gif
Excise tax on high-cost plansLabor unions were unhappy with the Senate bill that imposed an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans or so-called "Cadillac plans."A 40% excise tax would be imposed on health care plans that cost more than $8,500 for individual coverage and $23,000 for family coverage, beginning in 2013. The tax would raise $149 billion over 10 years the largest source of new revenue, according to the Congressional Budget Office.The tax would be reduced by 80% largely by delaying it until 2018, raising the thresholds to $10,200 for individual plans and $27,500 for family plans, and excluding dental and vision plans.
grey.gif
Medicare taxIncreasing the Medicare tax that Americans pay on wages was one of the several ways to generate new revenues to pay for the bill.The Medicare payroll tax on wages would be increased by 0.9% (from 1.45% to 2.35%) on earnings over $200,000 for individual taxpayers and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly, beginning in 2013.The Senate's proposed payroll tax would remain and be expanded to include investment income for the first time.
grey.gif

Sources: Congressional Budget Office; House Rules Committee; Kaiser Family Foundation; the White House
"

Read @ USA Today

=================================================

Another excellent comparative and educational summary.



__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
"Health bill spreads the pain, benefits" (Richard Wolf and Alison Young, USA Today, 3/23/10)+ More summaries (USA Today)
Permalink  
 


Read @ POLITICO

(Emphasis added)

"

Timing right for Democrats' midterm election hopes

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 3/23/10 5:07 AM EDT

Voters will get their first taste of the benefits of health care reform only a few short weeks before the November midterm elections.

They won’t have to swallow most of the bitter pills until much later — well after President Barack Obama faces voters again in 2012.

Match the effective dates of key reform provisions against the election calendar, and it becomes clear that Democrats were as focused on writing a legislative overhaul of the health care system as they were on devising a political road map for selling it to voters.

The landmark health legislation the president will sign into law Tuesday, and an accompanying package of fixes still moving through the Senate, go further than previous incarnations of the bill to front-load the gain and push back the pain.

Clearly, there has been an effort to address an expectations gap,” said Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which conducted polling last year that found a gulf between what Americans expected to see immediately and what the bill would actually offer.

By providing immediate benefits, Democrats can inoculate themselves from the Republican push for repeal, he said.

“Once you give benefits of this kind of scope to the American people, they are not going to want to give them back,” Altman said.

The latest version delays by at least two years the taxes on the insurance and medical device industries, the cap on contributions to flexible savings accounts and the excise tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans. In each case, the implementation dates shifted to at least 2013 or, in the case of the Cadillac tax, until 2018.

Another major tax increase — a boost in the Medicare payroll tax on investment income — doesn’t hit until 2013.

The one tax increase that goes into effect soon – in July - is a 10 percent levy on indoor tanning services, dubbed the "vanity tax."

The most ambitious efforts to expand coverage won’t begin immediately, either.

More than $400 billion in subsidies for lower-income Americans to purchase insurance won’t be available until 2014. The new insurance marketplaces known as exchanges also won’t be up and running until then. The same goes for a major expansion of Medicaid.

It takes time to build the governmental infrastructure to pull off a change of this size to the health care system.

But with that in mind, Democrats pushed hard over the past six months to move up as many reforms as possible — and the ones they chose also happen to be the most popular and the least costly.

"



-- Edited by Sanders on Wednesday 24th of March 2010 12:08:33 PM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 

Read @ CNN

(Emphasis added below)

"

Health care reform also touches tanning beds, restaurant menus

By Madison Park, CNN, March 23, 2010 5:00 p.m. EDT

[SNIP]

Restaurants

There are 540 calories in a Big Mac and 670 calories in a Whopper. Nutritional information will be unavoidable when customers step up to the counter to order.

The health care law requires chain restaurants that have more than 20 locations to display calorie information next to the food item on the standard menu.

The Food and Drug Administration has the task of establishing more specific regulations and determining when these changes go into effect.

The health care law requires "succinct statement concerning suggested daily caloric intake" that are "posted prominently on the menu and designed to enable the public to understand, in the context of a total daily diet, the significance of the caloric information that is provided on the menu."

Dr. Kelly Brownell, a Yale University psychology professor at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, conducted research that found that consumers choose lower-calorie food when their menus contained caloric information and a statement that said "an average person consumes 2,000 calories a day."

"A lot of people don't know what it means to have 600 calories," he said. "They have no context and the legislation requires that anchor statement."

Nutrition facts would also be required to be posted on vending machine products and drive-thru menus. Temporary specials appearing on the menu for less than 60 days, condiments and test market foods are exempt.

"Consumers have the right to this info whether or not it makes a difference on the diet," Brownell said. "But I believe the data will ultimately show that it does."

The National Restaurant Association called the passage of the provision "a win for consumers and restaurateurs." The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group, praised its passage, calling it a "one of dozens of things we will need to do to reduce rates of obesity and diet-related disease in this country."

In recent years, New York City and California have passed laws requiring nutritional information on menus.

Earlier this month, Panera Bread announced it voluntarily will post calorie information in all its locations by the end of 2010.

Tanning tax

Tanning enthusiasts will have to shell out more to achieve the golden shade. The health care law imposes a 10 percent tax on the service.

John Overstreet, the executive director of The Indoor Tanning Association, decried the new tax calling it, "a crummy, crummy way to make tax policy."

Lawmakers had considered taxing elective cosmetic procedures, but changed the language to tax indoor tanning services instead.

"We've been hit by the recession already," Overstreet said. "A 10 percent tax will be a body blow to the industry."

But UV-emitting tanning devices have been classified as "carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization.

Flexible spending account

The flexible spending account allows consumers to use pretax dollars for health care expenses.

Under the current rule, employers set the limit on how much their employees can set aside for FSAs. But by 2013, the law limits the accounts to $2,500.

This cap is not expected to constrain most people, because the average amount in FSAs is $1,400, said Bob Natt, the CEO of PayFlex, a company that manages employee benefit programs.

FSAs can be used to pay for doctor's bills, prescription medicine and over-the-counter items such as pain relievers, antihistamines, acne drugs and wart removers. But under the new law, these over-the-counter drugs would no longer be eligible FSA expenses after this year.

This is not expected to be a big issue for consumers as only a small percentage of FSA amounts are used to purchase over-the-counter medication, Natt said. About 70 to 80 percent of FSA payments are spent on deductibles, co-payments and prescription drugs, he said.

Since FSAs are pretax dollars, the government could be trying to raise revenue by discouraging more money from going into these accounts.

"You decide to put less dollars [into the FSA] because you can't have certain benefits like buying over-the-counters, then the federal government gets more money," Natt said.

"

==============================

I am trying to get the best summaries of implications in dollar terms from as many stakeholder perspectives as possible, but mostly highlighting from employee/consumer viewpoint.

If you find such articles, please share, highlighting items with fiscal impact, in particular from consumer/employee/taxpayer viewpoint. Thanks.


-- Edited by Sanders on Wednesday 24th of March 2010 12:45:17 PM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Platinum

Status: Offline
Posts: 460
Date:
RE: "Health bill spreads the pain, benefits" (Richard Wolf and Alison Young, USA Today, 3/23/10)+ More summaries (USA To
Permalink  
 


Beginning in 2014, young adults will be required to purchase insurance or face tax penalties. 


this is BS....nice way to teach RESPONSIBILITY right off the bat.



__________________
Don't blame me...I voted HILLARY!

http://www.barefootfoundation.com/index_en.php

http://www.savethechildren.org/


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
"Health bill spreads the pain, benefits" (Richard Wolf and Alison Young, USA Today, 3/23/10)+ More summaries (USA Today)
Permalink  
 


VH,

That would be for people > 26 (since those below 26 can be on their parents' plans).

They would also be eligible for subsidies if they meet criteria.  So, the hit on their income would be very very low.

Even the "fine" would be as low as $695 or as high as 2.5% of household income.

I hope they do get insurance and not have to pay fine, but if they cannot afford it, 2.5% of income is not so bad.

Yes, many think there needs to be more "teeth" in the legislation but I do not agree. I think what they have is plenty to encourage people to get insurance for themselves.. and the fine is very gradual... far more so than what the House version had.






-- Edited by Sanders on Thursday 25th of March 2010 10:29:17 PM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
RE: "Health bill spreads the pain, benefits" (Richard Wolf and Alison Young, USA Today, 3/23/10)+ More summaries (USA To
Permalink  
 


I thought this was a good perspective to share. This Rep voted AGAINST the House version of the bill but voted FOR the Compromise Bill (Senate bill when it came to the House to be adopted and the Reconciliatin Bill). She explains.


Denver Post

"
Guest Commentary

Why I voted for this health care bill

By U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey, Posted: 03/26/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

Before I was a public servant I was a small-business owner, keeping the books in the Web-development firm my husband and I started. I crunched numbers, evaluated costs and always looked for solutions that combined good budgeting with good management. Every time we made a major business decision, we evaluated that decision on its own merit.

That was the approach I brought to Congress a year and a half ago: weigh costs with results, and make decisions based on the facts, not politics. I know this has angered people on the left as well as the right. Frankly, I take that as a sign that I am doing my job.

Last fall, I voted against the House version of health care reform. I had many issues with the legislation, but I simply felt it did not do enough to contain costs, a concern I repeatedly voiced to House leadership and the Obama administration.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the compromise measure the House passed on Sunday costs $940 billion, more than $100 billion less than the House-passed bill. It reduces the deficit by more than $1.3 trillion in the next two decades. It will be the single largest deficit-reduction bill in 27 years.

I support this compromise health care bill.

There are things that this bill does immediately that I could not, in good conscience, oppose: It ends denial of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and prevents health insurance companies from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. It allows people who are 26 and younger to stay on their parents' health care plans. As the mother of three children under the age of 26, that is an important issue for me.

I felt that the House bill did not do enough to help small business. This compromise legislation offers immediate tax credits for small businesses that offer their employees health care coverage. Almost 19,000 businesses in Colorado's 4th Congressional District alone will benefit.

It closes the "doughnut hole" in Medicare Part D, which will lead to lower drug costs for seniors, and guarantees that Medicare benefits will not be cut, all by saving money from within the Medicare program by weeding out waste, fraud and abuse.

Additionally, more than 30 million new people will benefit from health insurance coverage within the next 10 years. Out-of-pocket costs for premiums and medical expenses will finally be made affordable for individuals and families.

There are strong private health insurance options covered by this bill, with state exchanges and more benefit plan options.

Quite simply, this was a better bill than the legislation the House passed last fall. It does more to contain costs while providing increased health insurance coverage.

This may come as a shock to some people — particularly the folks who are running against me in November — but every decision you make in Congress should not be guided by a political compass. If you are too busy worrying about how to climb the political ladder, and spend little time evaluating legislation on its merits, you may end up a great politician, but you will be a lousy representative.

I'd rather be a good representative and leave the politics to the politicians.

U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey is a Democrat who represents Colorado's 4th Congressional District.

"
Source link: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_1475947


__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard