Louisiana Rep John Flemming's take on Health Care reform

[ragtopW]

They shouldn't be "urged" to forego, they should be "required" to do so. If government-run health care is so great, Congress should be REQUIRED to participate.

Animal Farm anyone?? we are all equal.. some of us are just a little more equal..

[TropicalTroubador]

6. Will you vote for a plan that will allow a board of politicians and bureaucrats to override decisions made by you and your doctor?

Both the Senate and House bills set up a government-run “comparative effectiveness” board that will make final decisions about treatment and care. In committee, I gave senators several opportunities to accept language that would forbid this board from denying care. All of my amendments were rejected, which suggests that the intent is to set up a board that will ration care, as is done in the United Kingdom.

As opposed to, say, the insurance companies overriding decisions made by me and my doctor, which happens *every damn day* in America now? And doing so not on the basis of medical science, but on the basis of balance sheets?

Where were the people who are now squealing about "budget-busting deficits" when Dubya turned a budget *surplus* into the biggest deficits in American history?

Where have the people screaming about "death boards" been when insurance companies have been denying individuals coverage for life-threatening illnesses, and then dragging out the appeals process until the unfortunate individuals die? Do a Google search; you'll find the stories. I've read them. They're outrageous.

Under the current, insurance-run system, unless you are independently wealthy and/or you can guarantee that you will never have any type of "chronic condition" including high cholesterol and hypertension, you are no more than one (your employer's, to "reduce headcount") or two (employer plus insurance company) corporate decisions away from being unable to afford care for your most serious and most expensive illnesses. If you lost your job tomorrow and couldn't get another one until after your COBRA benefits run out, you might *never* be able to get insured for those "pre-existing" conditions again.

If that doesn't scare you...you're not paying attention.

[alphabits]

Myth: “Under the current draft of the Democrat health care legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill.” – Republican Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana.

Fact: Members of Congress’ health care plan will be subject to the same rules as all other employer-sponsored plans. Nothing in the legislation exempts the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan (the plan members of Congress and staff enroll in) from the reforms.

By the end of 2018, all employer-sponsored health insurance plans will have to meet at least the same basic minimum standards of coverage as those insurance plans as offered through the exchange. These minimum standards include coverage for preventative care, inpatient and outpatient hospital services, maternity care, and mental health services, among others. The FEHB will also follow these rules.

More than 90 percent of all employer-sponsored plans offered today are likely to meet or exceed the bill’s minimum standard of coverage under our legislation, including the FEHB. In these cases, employees would not see any changes in how they use their plan, the doctors they choose or the care they receive. The remaining plans will have until the end of 2018 to make these minor adjustments.

[spartan1979]

If the honorable representative from Louisiana is willing to vote against this plan, is he willing to accept the same coverage that 36.2% of his constituents have?

http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/ ... isiana.pdf

[The Remittance Man]

Myth: “Under the current draft of the Democrat health care legislation

For future reference, any source that uses "Democrat" as an adjective like that (instead of the correct "Democratic") is probably right-wing propaganda and not factually trustworthy. Thanks, alphabits, for posting that.

[green1]

Myth: “Under the current draft of the Democrat health care legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill.” – Republican Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana.

Fact: Members of Congress’ health care plan will be subject to the same rules as all other employer-sponsored plans. Nothing in the legislation exempts the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan (the plan members of Congress and staff enroll in) from the reforms.

By the end of 2018, all employer-sponsored health insurance plans will have to meet at least the same basic minimum standards of coverage as those insurance plans as offered through the exchange. These minimum standards include coverage for preventative care, inpatient and outpatient hospital services, maternity care, and mental health services, among others. The FEHB will also follow these rules.

More than 90 percent of all employer-sponsored plans offered today are likely to meet or exceed the bill’s minimum standard of coverage under our legislation, including the FEHB. In these cases, employees would not see any changes in how they use their plan, the doctors they choose or the care they receive. The remaining plans will have until the end of 2018 to make these minor adjustments.

Sorry Bits, but this is one of the straw man arguments that the Democratic supporters out there are putting up. They say that your employer sponsored plan will remain and that the government one would be for anyone who does not get an employer health plan. Companies will look at this and see that they can end their health insurance, the government will then have to take up the slack, thereby freeing up capital for other business items. It is a simple balance sheet analysis.
When this happens these people will have the government sponsored minimum insurance, but the congress, whose also has a private health plan will keep theirs. After all, they control the checkbook and they sure as hell won't terminate their health insurance. They don't care about the bottom line like a company does. It's not even their money that they are spending, it's yours and mine.
Obama's Fedex, UPS and USPS analogy that he gave yesterday is bogus. People chose to pay more for Fedex and UPS as a business cost. Except where he said that the USPS is always having problems. It is almost like he knows that the government can't run somthing like this and admitted it yesterday.

[ph4ever]

Myth: “Under the current draft of the Democrat health care legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill.” – Republican Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana.

Fact: Members of Congress’ health care plan will be subject to the same rules as all other employer-sponsored plans. Nothing in the legislation exempts the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan (the plan members of Congress and staff enroll in) from the reforms.

By the end of 2018, all employer-sponsored health insurance plans will have to meet at least the same basic minimum standards of coverage as those insurance plans as offered through the exchange. These minimum standards include coverage for preventative care, inpatient and outpatient hospital services, maternity care, and mental health services, among others. The FEHB will also follow these rules.

More than 90 percent of all employer-sponsored plans offered today are likely to meet or exceed the bill’s minimum standard of coverage under our legislation, including the FEHB. In these cases, employees would not see any changes in how they use their plan, the doctors they choose or the care they receive. The remaining plans will have until the end of 2018 to make these minor adjustments.

Sorry Bits, but this is one of the straw man arguments that the Democratic supporters out there are putting up. They say that your employer sponsored plan will remain and that the government one would be for anyone who does not get an employer health plan. Companies will look at this and see that they can end their health insurance, the government will then have to take up the slack, thereby freeing up capital for other business items. It is a simple balance sheet analysis.
When this happens these people will have the government sponsored minimum insurance, but the congress, whose also has a private health plan will keep theirs. After all, they control the checkbook and they sure as hell won't terminate their health insurance. They don't care about the bottom line like a company does. It's not even their money that they are spending, it's yours and mine.
Obama's Fedex, UPS and USPS analogy that he gave yesterday is bogus. People chose to pay more for Fedex and UPS as a business cost. Except where he said that the USPS is always having problems. It is almost like he knows that the government can't run somthing like this and admitted it yesterday.

I bet he knows that the USPS isn't entirely a government run operation.

[green1]

I bet he knows that the USPS isn't entirely a government run operation.

Indeed, and they still F it up with the little bit of interference, I mean oversight, that they do have.

[alphabits]

Sorry Bits, but this is one of the straw man arguments that the Democratic supporters out there are putting up. They say that your employer sponsored plan will remain and that the government one would be for anyone who does not get an employer health plan. Companies will look at this and see that they can end their health insurance, the government will then have to take up the slack, thereby freeing up capital for other business items. It is a simple balance sheet analysis.

Whether or not this is true, it isn't what Rep. Flemming claims on his website and in his resolution. He implies that there's specific wording in the bill that exempts Congress from the provisions of the bill (but, note that he doesn't include any reference to the specific part of the bill where this insidious exemption is located). That's misleading at best ..... and an absolute lie at worst.

As far as employers dropping health plans, there is no "free ride" for employers who choose not to offer health insurance. Those with payrolls in excess of 400k/yr will be required to pay an amount equal to 8% of their payroll into a government fund. There is a decreasing scale for those with payrolls between 400k & 250k and those with a payroll less than 250k are exempt. My guess is that the current burden cost for health insurance would be a bit above 8%. Whether that difference is enough to entice employers to drop their insurance ..... beats the heck out of me. But, by the same token, what requires an employer to offer insurance now?

All things considered, I'm still on the fence about this legislation. But I find it very frustrating trying to research the facts on the bill and having to wade through tons misleading, inaccurate or outright false "information" - most of it from opponents of the bill. And sadly, most people are forming their opinion based on someone else's (likely biased) interpretation.

[green1]

Whether or not this is true, it isn't what Rep. Flemming claims on his website and in his resolution. He implies that there's specific wording in the bill that exempts Congress from the provisions of the bill (but, note that he doesn't include any reference to the specific part of the bill where this insidious exemption is located). That's misleading at best ..... and an absolute lie at worst.

As far as employers dropping health plans, there is no "free ride" for employers who choose not to offer health insurance. Those with payrolls in excess of 400k/yr will be required to pay an amount equal to 8% of their payroll into a government fund. There is a decreasing scale for those with payrolls between 400k & 250k and those with a payroll less than 250k are exempt. My guess is that the current burden cost for health insurance would be a bit above 8%. Whether that difference is enough to entice employers to drop their insurance ..... beats the heck out of me. But, by the same token, what requires an employer to offer insurance now?

Point made. I don't agree with the idea that he is misleading. I think it more that he wants to Congress to work under the same health insurance conditions that everyon else will. But, I agree that he does not express that on the website.

Payrolls of more than 400K a year? So basicaly the vast majority of businesses in this country. 400K a year is 10 people at 40K a year. So much for protecting the small business owner. 8% fo 400K is 32K. That is someones annual salary. But no longer. Cut that job to pay this tax, I mean contribution. At least that is how it is worded in the bill.

[C-Dawg]

Myth: “Under the current draft of the Democrat health care legislation

For future reference, any source that uses "Democrat" as an adjective like that (instead of the correct "Democratic") is probably right-wing propaganda and not factually trustworthy. Thanks, alphabits, for posting that.

I say Democrat all the time...and am not a right wing puppet....I just think the Dems are just as evil as the Republicans....they just serve different masters, and sadly "Joe Middle class Taxpayer" rarely gets served by either one of them.

I agree with Bits though...both parties spew so much BS, it's hard to wade thru it and find the truth, which always seems to be somewhere in the middle of what both are saying.

[ph4ever]

Whether or not this is true, it isn't what Rep. Flemming claims on his website and in his resolution. He implies that there's specific wording in the bill that exempts Congress from the provisions of the bill (but, note that he doesn't include any reference to the specific part of the bill where this insidious exemption is located). That's misleading at best ..... and an absolute lie at worst.

As far as employers dropping health plans, there is no "free ride" for employers who choose not to offer health insurance. Those with payrolls in excess of 400k/yr will be required to pay an amount equal to 8% of their payroll into a government fund. There is a decreasing scale for those with payrolls between 400k & 250k and those with a payroll less than 250k are exempt. My guess is that the current burden cost for health insurance would be a bit above 8%. Whether that difference is enough to entice employers to drop their insurance ..... beats the heck out of me. But, by the same token, what requires an employer to offer insurance now?

Point made. I don't agree with the idea that he is misleading. I think it more that he wants to Congress to work under the same health insurance conditions that everyon else will. But, I agree that he does not express that on the website.

Payrolls of more than 400K a year? So basicaly the vast majority of businesses in this country. 400K a year is 10 people at 40K a year. So much for protecting the small business owner. 8% fo 400K is 32K. That is someones annual salary. But no longer. Cut that job to pay this tax, I mean contribution. At least that is how it is worded in the bill.

There's a part of me that wonders if that is the vast majority of businesses in this country. Yes a small business is usually defined as a sole proprietorship with 100 or less employees. But I doubt seriously that a payroll of 400K a year would hold true to all small businesses. Especially when you look at all the businesses that have only have a small handfull of employees - for example a gas station, auto repair, daycare, family restaurant, family grocery etc etc etc. That being said I also see where it's also relative - a business that small may also have to cut a minimuim wage employee to cover their contribution but then the small buisiness owner could possibly obtain insurance for themself where they didn't have it before.

[The Remittance Man]

I say Democrat all the time...and am not a right wing puppet....

Then you should probably stop using a term that makes you sound like one.

Payrolls of more than 400K a year? So basicaly the vast majority of businesses in this country. 400K a year is 10 people at 40K a year. So much for protecting the small business owner. 8% fo 400K is 32K. That is someones annual salary. But no longer. Cut that job to pay this tax, I mean contribution. At least that is how it is worded in the bill.

That will only happen if it is impossible to pay the salary from any other source (like, say the CEO's salary, which is almost certainly a great deal more than 32K). If a company that size is on such a tight budget that it can't cough up 32K from any source except cutting a job that pays that much, it's probably in pretty big trouble and would be facing layoffs anyhow. That is a simple balance sheet analysis.

[Elrod]

That will only happen if it is impossible to pay the salary from any other source (like, say the CEO's salary, which is almost certainly a great deal more than 32K). If a company that size is on such a tight budget that it can't cough up 32K from any source except cutting a job that pays that much, it's probably in pretty big trouble and would be facing layoffs anyhow. That is a simple balance sheet analysis.

I'm just curious.

Did your analysis tell you how many CEOs are going to voluntarily reduce their own salary by $32,000 to pay for a government-mandated program that they don't believe in?

[C-Dawg]

I say Democrat all the time...and am not a right wing puppet....

Then you should probably stop using a term that makes you sound like one.

Actually, I don't care....my friends who are conservatives call me liberal, and my liberal friends call me conservative.....

[The Remittance Man]

That will only happen if it is impossible to pay the salary from any other source (like, say the CEO's salary, which is almost certainly a great deal more than 32K). If a company that size is on such a tight budget that it can't cough up 32K from any source except cutting a job that pays that much, it's probably in pretty big trouble and would be facing layoffs anyhow. That is a simple balance sheet analysis.

I'm just curious.

Did your analysis tell you how many CEOs are going to voluntarily reduce their own salary by $32,000 to pay for a government-mandated program that they don't believe in?

No, but it did tell me that if a CEO would rather fire a decent employee than sacrifice a tiny portion of his or her own salary to help ensure that employee and his/her family had health care, s/he probably isn't much of a business leader. Or any other sort of leader either, for that matter. And all this is once again assuming that it is absolutely impossible for the company to tap any other source (profits? working capital?), which is extremely unlikely and, if true, is a sign of much bigger problems for the company.

[green1]

That will only happen if it is impossible to pay the salary from any other source (like, say the CEO's salary, which is almost certainly a great deal more than 32K). If a company that size is on such a tight budget that it can't cough up 32K from any source except cutting a job that pays that much, it's probably in pretty big trouble and would be facing layoffs anyhow. That is a simple balance sheet analysis.

Who are you to tell any company how it should run it's business? I am not talking abou the massive corporations. I am talking about the gas station/mechanic shops, the gorcery stores, the Dunkin Donuts on the corner, the bookstore. Yeah, all of those businesses that are sole proprietoriships will be affected by this. Those owners laid out huge sums of capital to get the thing started, why shouldn't they reap the reward of their hard work?

Look, the point to this is that if a company does not voluntarily jump on the gov't plan they face this tax of an annual salary. But Obama and the other supporters of this plan have said all along that "you can keep your own insurance". What they did not say was that in doing so you would be put at an unfair competetive disadvantage in the marketplace by doing so. To simply remain level with another company that is on the gov't dole you will have to cough up between 6% and 8% of the payroll annually as a tax. And this is in addition to your "regular" taxes.

[TheSecretsInTheCrust]

.... I *despise* politicians. )

No truer words have been typed here on BN

[The Remittance Man]

Who are you to tell any company how it should run it's business? I am not talking abou the massive corporations. I am talking about the gas station/mechanic shops, the gorcery stores, the Dunkin Donuts on the corner, the bookstore. Yeah, all of those businesses that are sole proprietoriships will be affected by this. Those owners laid out huge sums of capital to get the thing started, why shouldn't they reap the reward of their hard work?

I'm not telling anybody how to run anything. I'm just debunking the idea that health care reform will lead to job losses.

[green1]

Who are you to tell any company how it should run it's business? I am not talking abou the massive corporations. I am talking about the gas station/mechanic shops, the gorcery stores, the Dunkin Donuts on the corner, the bookstore. Yeah, all of those businesses that are sole proprietoriships will be affected by this. Those owners laid out huge sums of capital to get the thing started, why shouldn't they reap the reward of their hard work?

I'm not telling anybody how to run anything. I'm just debunking the idea that health care reform will lead to job losses.

Didn't debunk anything. When shown actual numbers you simply said that the CEO should take a pay cut. You didn't address the issue of how it would not lead to job losses.