The 'thing' is this, we cannot focus on complaints of reduced income, because, that does not necessarily mean lower profits or poorer services. In other words, in removing such things a 'Vacation Trips' to physicians, surgeons and pharmacists as incentives to promote certain prescriptions that is a direct savings to the consumer, it will lower medication costs to the consumer, but, there may very well be a redistribution of income to Pharmaceutical companies because the larger companies might have had an unfair advantage in the first place.
Insisting on generics availability and preference to name brands by Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits is going to have a direct effect on the industry's income. It is just the way it is. Either Americans want highly efficient cost controls or they don't. The high prices consumers were paying before the laws went into effect was actually a subsidy, and as far as I am concerned an illegitimate subsidy to the industry.
All the dynamics at work to 'support' the medical industries, insurance companies included, before the new legislation were putting high and unsustainable costs on the backs of the consumers. They were paying for name brands which lead them to the 'donut hole' quicker, they were paying supplemental insurance costs for others care because they didn't have insurance or were forced into bankruptcy because of medical costs, etc.
Those dynamics have been attacked by these two bills and there is going to a lot of complaints by companies as they realize their marketing strategies no longer are working for them. These bills make the medical industry work for the consumer for the first time in history. That is a huge culture shock to these companies.
They only hope their complaining on any venue they can find will effect the electorate of the USA and drive people to want to dismantle the laws. That is not a good idea. If the companies are complaining that is a good thing. It means the legislation is carrying out the needs of the people and not catering to stockholders and CEOs.Those dynamics have been attacked by these two bills and there is going to a lot of complaints by companies as they realize their marketing strategies no longer are working for them. These bills make the medical industry work for the consumer for the first time in history. That is a huge culture shock to these companies.
It is a huge transition for these companies and they need to be insightful and prudent in their decisions. The CEOs will find that 'the long view' of profits is the best way to earn their pay. The bills are written to have a long term and carefully measured effect on health care insurance. It is THAT 'horizon' the CEOs need to focus and stop hoping for 'flash in the pan' profits. I just don't see that happening. Their R&D is there best investment. The FDA needs to pursue these new medications with vigor as well. Quite frankly, I am concerned about the chronic issues with 'warnings' to people after the drugs have been marketed.
I got sincerely upset the other day when I saw an ad for class action suits being filed against "Yaz." (click here). It wasn't the ads that bothered me, it was the idea that young women were a target for a medication that has proven to be dangerous in a very short time of marketing. That is way out of line with consumer protection the way it needs to be administered. Even the side effects in the commercials for Yaz is prohibitive to a patient's best outcome. In all honesty, I believe commercial marketing of medications is profoundly wrong. It makes it a 'popularity' issue, drives up the cost of medications and quite frankly imposes demands on MDs that should be left up to their discretion and not necessarily the demands of their patients.
If a company wants to 'morally' market their products then do public awareness commercials about medical conditions that can be addressed by their products without adding a lot of 'jazz' to the product. And where did the bedside manner of the physician go to have a good relationship with their patients to be sensitive to their needs and possible diagnosis. I really believe the 'incentive' for prescription writing is all backwards. It is consumer heavy when it should be physician directed.
Whatever.
But, the bottom line is there will be a lot of complaints by CEOs and companies and all sort of folks as the laws roll out. Everyone has to work through them because this is a major paradigm shift and I don't care if the Tea Baggers don't like the word paradigm. Grow up.
"I don't like this and I don't like that...blah, blah, blah."
Oh.
Health Care Stocks Climb (click here)
Last Update: 23-Apr-10 13:30 ET
Dow +19.35 at 11153.64, Nasdaq -3.19 at 2515.88, S&P +1.66 at 1210.33
[BRIEFING.COM] Stocks have retraced most of this morning's gains following a pop in health care stocks, and the sector is now up 0.8%. Health care stocks found a bid around noon after Merck (MRK 35.36, +1.61) announced its revenues would fall by $170 millon, less than expected. Competitors Pfizer (PFE 16.86, +0.38), and Bristol-Meyers Squibb (BMY 24.73, +0.30) followed suit. The moves comes after the sector had fallen 3% over the past two sessions.H.R.4872
One Hundred Eleventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten
An Act
To provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 13).
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
I am not going to read the table of contents.
TITLE I--COVERAGE, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND REVENUES
Subtitle A--Coverage
SEC. 1001. TAX CREDITS.
(a) Premium Tax Credits- Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1401 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and amended by section 10105 of such Act, is amended--
Now, I have to find the section in the PPACA to know the exact changes. I have stated on many occasions Section 36B of the IRS Code of 1986 is the part of the code that addresses health care and health care insurance.
No one would want me as a President either. I'd tell ya exactly what I thought of you. I'll tell you how completely stupid the Tea Baggers are. They want a paradigm shift back to 1776, or there abouts. If that were to occur, the country would have to shrink back to 13 colonies.
Think about how completely stupid that concept truly is. George Washington would no more be able to be President today with the vast expanse of the USA as it exists and all the complexity to that fact than Santa Claus can stop the North Pole from melting down.
Internet what? Paradigm shifts happen for a reason and they are good reasons. There is no way the laws that existed in 1776 could bring justice to the USA and its 300 million people and vast land mass and organized military than if there were a man in the moon.
Morons, I am telling you. Chickens for payment. Dear God what has happened to the intelligence of the people of the USA? The citizens of the USA should be grateful for all the paradigm shifts SINCE 1776 and how the citizens of this country are beating longevity challenges, disease challenges, etc. Morons. Completely ignorant ingrates. THAT is what I would be saying to these jerks if I were President. They should be grateful I didn't slip into POWER in the White House on a technicality.
What was that section again?
Oh, yeah, 1401, if I remember correctly there were issues I left off with last time on 1401.
No one would want me as a President either. I'd tell ya exactly what I thought of you. I'll tell you how completely stupid the Tea Baggers are. They want a paradigm shift back to 1776, or there abouts. If that were to occur, the country would have to shrink back to 13 colonies.
Think about how completely stupid that concept truly is. George Washington would no more be able to be President today with the vast expanse of the USA as it exists and all the complexity to that fact than Santa Claus can stop the North Pole from melting down.
Internet what? Paradigm shifts happen for a reason and they are good reasons. There is no way the laws that existed in 1776 could bring justice to the USA and its 300 million people and vast land mass and organized military than if there were a man in the moon.
Morons, I am telling you. Chickens for payment. Dear God what has happened to the intelligence of the people of the USA? The citizens of the USA should be grateful for all the paradigm shifts SINCE 1776 and how the citizens of this country are beating longevity challenges, disease challenges, etc. Morons. Completely ignorant ingrates. THAT is what I would be saying to these jerks if I were President. They should be grateful I didn't slip into POWER in the White House on a technicality.
What was that section again?
Oh, yeah, 1401, if I remember correctly there were issues I left off with last time on 1401.
Subtitle E--Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans
PART I--PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS
Subpart A--Premium Tax Credits and Cost-sharing Reductions
SEC. 1401. REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT PROVIDING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.
I need to find Section 10105. You know what my mother used to tell me when I would complain because I was SPOILED.
"YOU COULD HAVE IT A LOT WORSE !" I never wanted to make those words to come true.
SEC. 10105. AMENDMENTS TO SUBTITLE E.
(a) Section 36B(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1401(a) of this Act, is amended by striking ‘is in excess of’ and inserting ‘equals or exceeds’.(b) Section 36B(c)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1401(a) of this Act, is amended by inserting ‘equals or’ before ‘exceeds’.
(c) Section 36B(c)(2)(C)(iv) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1401(a) of this Act, is amended by striking ‘subsection (b)(3)(A)(ii)’ and inserting ‘subsection (b)(3)(A)(iii)’.
(d) Section 1401(d) of this Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(3) Section 6211(b)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘36B,’ after ‘36A,’.’.
(e)(1) Subparagraph (B) of section 45R(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1421(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
‘(B) DOLLAR AMOUNT- For purposes of paragraph (1)(B) and subsection (c)(2)--
‘(i) 2010, 2011, 2012, AND 2013- The dollar amount in effect under this paragraph for taxable years beginning in 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013 is $25,000.
‘(ii) SUBSEQUENT YEARS- In the case of a taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2013, the dollar amount in effect under this paragraph shall be equal to $25,000, multiplied by the cost-of-living adjustment under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2012’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.’.
(2) Subsection (g) of section 45R of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1421(a) of this Act, is amended by striking ‘2011’ both places it appears and inserting ‘2010, 2011’.
(3) Section 280C(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1421(d)(1) of this Act, is amended by striking ‘2011’ and inserting ‘2010, 2011’.
(4) Section 1421(f) of this Act is amended by striking ‘2010’ both places it appears and inserting ‘2009’.
(5) The amendments made by this subsection shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 1421 of this Act.
(f) Part I of subtitle E of title I of this Act is amended by adding at the end of subpart B, the following:
That is that complete section. What a mess that, huh? And the change is this:
(1) in subsection (b)(3)(A)--
The initial premium percentage is-- The final premium percentage is--
Up to 133% 2.0% 2.0%
133% up to 150% 3.0% 4.0%
150% up to 200% 4.0% 6.3%
200% up to 250% 6.3% 8.05%
250% up to 300% 8.05% 9.5%
300% up to 400% 9.5% 9.5%’; and
(B) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii), and inserting the following:
Let me look to see what this is all about so far. Section 10105 is not the focus to this segment of the bill. The focus of the bill is on Section 1401 AND any of the effects as amended by 10105. So, let get the language from 1401 and 10105 is immediately above so it should make it easy to amend that section in this regard.
‘(b) Premium Assistance Credit Amount- For purposes of this section--
‘(3) OTHER TERMS AND RULES RELATING TO PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNTS- For purposes of paragraph (2)--
‘(b) Premium Assistance Credit Amount- For purposes of this section--
‘(3) OTHER TERMS AND RULES RELATING TO PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNTS- For purposes of paragraph (2)--
‘(A) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE-
Anyone ever consider that the 'intelligent' discussion of the nation sorta fell apart with the decline of NEWSPRINT? Anyone ever do a study about that?
One of the changes is this and addresses (i) in that section.
(A) in clause
‘(i) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in clause (ii), the applicable percentage with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year is equal to 2.8 percent, increased by the number of percentage points (not greater than 7) which bears the same ratio to 7 percentage points as--
And "with respect to taxpayer" is removed.
(i), by striking ‘with respect to any taxpayer’ and all that follows up to the end period
‘(I) the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year in excess of 100 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved, bears to
One of the changes is this and addresses (i) in that section.
(A) in clause
This is the OLD wording:
‘(i) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in clause (ii), the applicable percentage with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year is equal to 2.8 percent, increased by the number of percentage points (not greater than 7) which bears the same ratio to 7 percentage points as--
And "with respect to taxpayer" is removed.
(i), by striking ‘with respect to any taxpayer’ and all that follows up to the end period
This is the rest of that section that is being removed:
‘(I) the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year in excess of 100 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved, bears to
‘(II) an amount equal to 200 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved.
And these are the words that replace it:
and inserting: ‘for any taxable year shall be the percentage such that the applicable percentage for any taxpayer whose household income is within an income tier specified in the following table shall increase, on a sliding scale in a linear manner, from the initial premium percentage to the final premium percentage specified in such table for such income tier:
So in other words, the old wording was discarded and there is an 'income tier' that replaces it for TAX CREDITS for health care insurance. Section 1401 is about the tax credits persons or families can take off their income tax. They are refundable credits. That means a consumer pays the premium and then qualifies on their Income Tax for the credits to their TAX based on the table above. These are monies that come directly off the tax and not off their reportable income. That is a big difference in the amount of tax paid or refunded. The tax credit is higher to the taxpayer by applying it this way. And I am sure everyone understands that aspect. Right? Taxes are paid based on income. If the tax credits were applied to income it would be far, far less than if they were applied to the actual tax paid. Taking any amount directly off the taxes paid, results in monies directly in their pocket rather than a small percentage of those monies.
To validate that, under Section 1401 it states this:
‘SEC. 36B. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.
‘(a) In General- In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer for the taxable year.
That is applied directly to the taxes paid. Okay. Now about the table.
This is rather incredible. The percentages are based on the poverty line. This is from Section 1401:
‘(I) the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year in excess of 100 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved, bears to
That means there are credits for income above the poverty line of 400%.
The poverty thresholds vary for the size of the family and there is difference from the 48 contiguous states and Alaska and Hawaii.. (Click here and refer to the table for 2009, although I believe there was also a revision for 2010). These credits start this year, by the way.
The lowest is for one individual in Alabama in the amount of $10,830.00. So, a person making $43,320.00 has a tax credit coming. Wow. That is the Middle Class. It goes up from there. That is the lowest on this table.
That means there are credits for income above the poverty line of 400%.
The poverty thresholds vary for the size of the family and there is difference from the 48 contiguous states and Alaska and Hawaii.. (Click here and refer to the table for 2009, although I believe there was also a revision for 2010). These credits start this year, by the way.
The lowest is for one individual in Alabama in the amount of $10,830.00. So, a person making $43,320.00 has a tax credit coming. Wow. That is the Middle Class. It goes up from there. That is the lowest on this table.
If I am reading that table correctly, the percentage listed is the percentage a person/family has to pay in premiums and the tax credit would be for the rest. That means someone at the 133% poverty line will only have to pay 2% of their premium cost and someone the 400% of the poverty line would only pay 9.5% of their premium. Is that right? Let me read that some more.
These are the provisions for section 1401. The first two paragraphs are the introduction and definition of the provision. The provision is actually stated under (b)(2).
‘(b) Premium Assistance Credit Amount- For purposes of this section--
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The term ‘premium assistance credit amount’ means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the taxable year.
‘(2) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT- The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of--
‘(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or
‘(B) the excess (if any) of--
‘(B) the excess (if any) of--
‘(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such month for the applicable second lowest cost silver plan with respect to the taxpayer, over
That isn't the amount that has to be paid, the entire cost of the policy is a tax credit. That percentage table is the percentage of credit give ABOVE the cost of the policy related to percentage of income.
‘(3) OTHER TERMS AND RULES RELATING TO PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNTS- For purposes of paragraph (2)--
‘(3) OTHER TERMS AND RULES RELATING TO PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNTS- For purposes of paragraph (2)--
For those income brackets there is help for health care. The insurance premiums are deductible and there is an additional benefit to help with costs of any nature. The percentage is what reflected in the table that is provided for those percentage above the poverty line. Paragraph 2 is very specific. It states, " the coverage month based on monthly premiums." The reason the word 'month' is used is because that is how the premium cost is delineated in case there are prorated amounts. The tax credit is calculated based on monthly costs per twelve months. So if an insured changes insurance carriers there will be two different premiums to consider in that calculation.
Wow. I thought everyone was doing good with small percentages to pay. But, the law takes it further for those income brackets. It provides help with deductibles and copays. That is the way I read it.
I am going to end here for today. Go get your health care insurance, you'll get your money back. I read a section that mentioned taxable years 2010, 2011 and 2012, so it seems as though this applies to this year. However, by reading the Reconciliation Bill first, I might be missing some of the earlier particulars to these paragraphs. This is some of the kindest laws I have ever witnessed in relation to insuring everyone. Wow. I'll discuss this again tomorrow and continue to read.
Wow. I thought everyone was doing good with small percentages to pay. But, the law takes it further for those income brackets. It provides help with deductibles and copays. That is the way I read it.
I am going to end here for today. Go get your health care insurance, you'll get your money back. I read a section that mentioned taxable years 2010, 2011 and 2012, so it seems as though this applies to this year. However, by reading the Reconciliation Bill first, I might be missing some of the earlier particulars to these paragraphs. This is some of the kindest laws I have ever witnessed in relation to insuring everyone. Wow. I'll discuss this again tomorrow and continue to read.
