Wyden's vision for health care reform begins with making sure everyone is covered

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

Wyden's Healthy Americans Act -- co-sponsored with Republican Robert Bennett of Utah -- would require all Americans except those covered by Medicare or in the military to buy a health insurance policy. (The Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib has an excellent summary of the bill here; you can see Wyden discuss the plan here and read the full text here.)

that in bold is what i have a problem with.

Why?

i'm not in the military. i have health insurance, yet i'm gonna be forced to buy something i already earned thru military service?

I am confused. You are not in the military anymore, but you have their health insurance, right? If that is so, this proposition would not change things for you at all. Unless I am missing something (which is possible since I ran out of Dr. Pepper last night )

read the part i bolded again. as i'm not in the military, but retired military, it could well apply to me. i read it as active duty military.

i see aj found it already. so steven, is this nhc sounding so great to you now? how about you, aj?

LOL...Charles, you are employed, correct? And your employer provides your health care, right? You don't have to buy anything additional. Amazing, I know.

care to try again?

If you have insurance, you won't have to buy insurance. I'm not sure why you keep insisting that that's what this proposal would make you do as that is not the intention of the bill.

already covered - and aj found it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

so steven, is this nhc sounding so great to you now? how about you, aj?

This is getting to be a bad habit but once again I have no idea what you're talking about? What's nhc???

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you have insurance, you won't have to buy insurance. I'm not sure why you keep insisting that that's what this proposal would make you do as that is not the intention of the bill.

already covered - and aj found it.

You both are interpreting what you think you would have to do. Obviously, if the language of bill says that you would, that was not the intention. They are not going to make people pay for insurance who already have coverage.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

so steven, is this nhc sounding so great to you now? how about you, aj?

This is getting to be a bad habit but once again I have no idea what you're talking about? What's nhc???

National Health Care?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Obviously, if the language of bill says that you would, that was not the intention.

In the end, it will be the language of the legislation that will matter, not the intentions.

Which is why legislation like this, as important as it is, has to be watched closely.

so steven, is this nhc sounding so great to you now? how about you, aj?

This is getting to be a bad habit but once again I have no idea what you're talking about? What's nhc???

National Health Care?

aah. I see.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Obviously, if the language of bill says that you would, that was not the intention.

In the end, it will be the language of the legislation that will matter, not the intentions.

Which is why legislation like this, as important as it is, has to be watched closely.

..and common sense.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Some have proposed eliminating the tax exclusion altogether, which would yield "well over $200 billion [that] could be used to finance other aspects of health care reform," Robert Lyke explained at "Tax Treatment of Health Insurance: A Primer," a December 2008 briefing sponsored by the Alliance for Health Reform. Lyke, a specialist in the domestic social policy division at the Congressional Research Service, also authored the Nov. 21, 2008, CRS report, The Tax Exclusion for Employer-Provided Health Insurance: Policy Issues Regarding the Repeal Debate.

Some members of Congress already support changing or ending the tax exclusion. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), for example, last year included a proposal in the Healthy Americans Act to replace the tax exclusion with a fixed income-tax deduction for insurance premiums.

President Obama harshly criticized Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during the presidential campaign last year for advocating a similar proposal to tax the value of health benefits. But the Obama administration more recently has softened its opposition to the idea.

During a March 15 appearance on FOXNews Sunday With Chris Wallace, Austan Goolsbee said that "if these ideas [such as taxing health benefits] can fit in with those principles [of providing affordable benefits], then we'll consider them….We are open to examining any policy." Goolsbee is a member of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers and is staff director and chief economist on the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Some news reports asserted that Obama actually is signaling support for taxing health benefits. But Goolsbee said such reports are "highly overstated. That is not in the president's budget.…There are some people in Congress who are pushing this, but that is not the president's idea."

http://www.aishealth.com/Bnow/hbd041709.html

Edited April 21, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Obviously, if the language of bill says that you would, that was not the intention.

In the end, it will be the language of the legislation that will matter, not the intentions.

Which is why legislation like this, as important as it is, has to be watched closely.

..and common sense.

No. it's the actual language of the legislation that will stand up in court. Not what you or I think is "common sense". After all, remember - you and I both think health care is a right, we think that's "common sense". There are those (understatement of the year) that disagree. To them, it's "common sense" that government is teh eevil.

No, leaving this to common sense just won't do. This must be spelled out properly in the text of the legislation.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Obviously, if the language of bill says that you would, that was not the intention.

In the end, it will be the language of the legislation that will matter, not the intentions.

Which is why legislation like this, as important as it is, has to be watched closely.

..and common sense.

No. it's the actual language of the legislation that will stand up in court. Not what you or I think is "common sense". After all, remember - you and I both think health care is a right, we think that's "common sense". There are those (understatement of the year) that disagree. To them, it's "common sense" that government is teh eevil.

No, leaving this to common sense just won't do. This must be spelled out properly in the text of the legislation.

Sure. Whenever a bill is created, it has be tested out for potential problems, which is why they could end up hundreds of pages in length. All I'm saying is - the summary of this bill is to help all Americans become insured - those who are already insured, can stay with their current insurance. I don't understand why the need to fret over something that would not only go against the very nature of the bill, but would also undermine its chances of success.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't understand why the need to fret over something that would not only go against the very nature of the bill, but would also undermine its chances of success.

Because the actual text of the bill appears to do just that. I'm all for politicians who want to do what's right, but legislation that sounds like exactly what we wanted has to be examined even more closely than legislation that does not.

[stangguy 0]

If you read the text of the bill you will notice that people covered under their current employers' insurance or their own private insurance aren't exempted from acquring additional insurance under this bill unless their employer provides the insurance under a "qualified collective bargaining agreement". And this is intentional as the CBA provisions don't apply if the CBA is entered into 7 years after the bill becomes law. Also, all of the employer contributions and personal contributions are going the the state governments. This bill isn't about requiring people to buy insurance. It is about funding a national health program. It doesn't care if you have private insurance or not, you will be required to pay the tax as determined by the law and required to enroll in a government run health care program.

But I wouldn't worry too much about this bill. It was introduced just over 2 years ago. I would be worried that it will be proposed again in a nearly identical form and could make it through.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If you read the text of the bill you will notice that people covered under their current employers' insurance or their own private insurance aren't exempted from acquring additional insurance under this bill unless their employer provides the insurance under a "qualified collective bargaining agreement". And this is intentional as the CBA provisions don't apply if the CBA is entered into 7 years after the bill becomes law. Also, all of the employer contributions and personal contributions are going the the state governments. This bill isn't about requiring people to buy insurance. It is about funding a national health program. It doesn't care if you have private insurance or not, you will be required to pay the tax as determined by the law and required to enroll in a government run health care program.

But I wouldn't worry too much about this bill. It was introduced just over 2 years ago. I would be worried that it will be proposed again in a nearly identical form and could make it through.

Somebody has been doing their homework.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Are you exempt if you're not poor and don't have an employer?

[mawilson 2,133]

Are you exempt if you're not poor and don't have an employer?

If you're not poor, you're pretty much screwed under Obama's administration, period.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Are you exempt if you're not poor and don't have an employer?

If you're not poor, you're pretty much screwed under Obama's administration, period.

So... in other words, health care is a right for those who can't afford it, but it's a luxury for those who can since they'll pay for it.

As I see it, if health care is a right, then everyone pays into the system; if it's a luxury, then everyone has to pay their own way. Making some pay for others is ludicrous.