Billionaires for Wealthcare Serande the Masses on Capitol Hill - 11/5/09 (HQ) Video

On November 5th, 2009, a group of grassroots billionaire health insurance executives went to our nation's Capitol to thank the assembled teabagging masses for protesting for the right to keep putting profits over people.

They sang, they chanted, they drank champagne, and they headed into the halls of Congress to serenade Congressmen and their lobbyists, who were eating lunch.

http://www.billionairesforwealthcare.com

Save & Share:

FredCPA1962: here's why it will destroy private insur. the taxes added to the plans will by definiation make costs of premiums go UP. the costs are already too high. as premiums go uop, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford pricvate pklans and be dumped into pub opt. what will be left is really rich people with really good 9expensive) insur. and ost people with pub option, less coverage. now, lets tlak about how we are gonna get MORE doctors, with more people in plans, with reduced pmts for procedure

monkeyfelo: @FredCPA1962 I contend that you have never even once looked at the bill. You know how I know this. You keep saying people get dumped in the public option. No one gets dumped into anything. Anybody who gets insurance through the exchange has a choice between numerous private health insurance plans and one public insurance plan. Subsidies that people get, can be used to buy private insurance or the public option. You should go learn what is in the bill, before you spout off made up scenarios.

FredCPA1962: so are we ready to do the math then? tell me how mnay uninsured there are. tell me the componenets of that number. and how you want to deal with each group. that is, for example those that can afford so you force them to buy it. or those that are already covered but havent dinged up. thosr that are illgal aliens etc etf. lets qwork thir thru. see what we come up woth. i know it'll be hard but it wont take us 8 months.

FredCPA1962: and you believe that private plans costs will go down then? and therefore more people will opt for them, the priv plans in the exchange? do you contend that is most probable? please show me the math on that, if you would and lets discuss it. in real terms. what is projected subsidy and cost of these (fewer) private plans. you've read the bill so you can tell me. if not, then what is the basis of your conclusion. if you dont mind heloing me on that.

FredCPA1962: what sceanruio did i make up. the ave cost of employer plans now is 10k. employee kickin averages 3200. net cost to employer is now approx 6500. ave wage (gross) is 40k. what is made up. lets keep going wioth real numbners...this is good for us both. so the 8% tax if employer kills plan is 8%, is that right? from what i have seen of bill. lets keep going. with real numbers. lets just work it thru. what makes sense. come on back with more from the bill i dont know.

FredCPA1962: hey monkey. let me ask you this: how mnay plans have you shopped for? how mnay employers and employees have you counselled on purchasing coverage for their employees/selves? how do you get your coverage? if you answer, that will assist me in helping you. you sound as though perhaps you may not have first hand knowledge in these fields. and thats fine. i wish i didnt. but i do. maybe i can help you. real world stuff. if you care to know.

FredCPA1962: monkey, riddle me this: what is the percentage of fed gov spending devoted to debt service+soc sec+medciare. please look it up. then add 10 tril to deicit. then add 2-3% points to debt service coverage rate. what do you come up woth. if you do this math. the result will make you laugh. laugh at the discussion we are having. it is moot. and it will be. one may argue we can grow out of it. but one would also have to argue we would be increasing employment. and making policy that would dothatright?

monkeyfelo: Well Fred, currently I get insurance through my employer. We just had to increase our cost sharing because like most companies this year couldn't afford to pay the yearly increase alone. When I started my own consulting firm with 4 employees, I certainly did have to figure out health insurance. And in the end we all had to get our insurance through the individual market. Where you have to foot the entire cost of your policy, which is also more likely to be lower quality.

FredCPA1962: now monkey, lets just say that the debt is ok, casue we can inflate out of it. then one would have to take a loo at the holders of that debt. we've had higher debt as % of gdp in the past right? late 1940s. whio held that debt? what was their posture on inflating out of it? who holsd it now? what will their posture be? tell me please. cause this is germane to this discussion. it really is. to deny that would be silly. really, man. silly.

FredCPA1962: you need a better broker. if you want one, let me know. did you get all get hsa's? did you price them? do you feel hsa (type) coverage would increase or decrease the costs? would a group plan alleviate the pre-exisitng problem? did any employees have pre-existings? how did the price comparasin work between a small group plan vs each buying indiv policies? what was cost differential?

monkeyfelo: real world stuff here Fred. 2000-2009 the average premiums have risen from $6,772 to $13,073 . That is an increase of 93.0%, during the same time wages have risen 19.0%. That means that premiums have risen 4.9 faster than wages. And not withstanding the 2.3 trillion dollars that Bush's tax cuts added to the deficit, it is important that all policies going forward address the deficit. Good news then because HR 3962 net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion 2010-2019

FredCPA1962: ok, so you have employer coverage now. with this current bill, do you expect the employers premium for you to go down or up? do you expect the % of the premium that you pay thru (i assume ) employee withholding to go down or up? what is your best guess? i dont know, we're both guessing. lets noodle it, see what seems most liklely and see where we come out. are we getting to where we both want to be: that is, with more folks covered and at a cheaper price.

FredCPA1962: ok, cool. lets look at the cbo calc. know how they arrived at that figure? part of the calc is that the doctor fix will be done. the one that has NOT been done for the last 6 years. that accounts for 250bil$ that (most likely) will never materialize. you know what i am speaking of?

FredCPA1962: lets continue, another way they arrive at that reduction in budget is: employers WILL dump employees into exchange then since they will "save" that cost (exchange is cheaper than buying 'real' insurance") the employer will give a raise to the employees for the diff, AND , get this, that added income for the employee will result in more tax revenues. to continue..there will be penalties for those that do not buy health insur now. taxes bascially.

FredCPA1962: now, we know that additional "revenues" (read taxes) will be raised by taxing the priv insurers for the "cadillac plans"; what do we expect the costs of those plans to do? go up? or down? does that exaccerbate the problem? or relieve it? you state the problme well. 93% incr in premiums while wages rise 20%. do we assume then after this bill is past wages would rise FASTER? what is basis for that vis a vis rate increases in priv plan premiums. seems counter intuitive. what is result?

monkeyfelo: Those numbers are the average costs of insurance in this country. You can go look at the Employer Health Benefits Survey 2009 from Kaiser Family Foundation. Or you can keep making your numbers up. You don't need to guess, that is what I am telling you. You could go look at the data. You can go look at the CBO score and see where it states reform will create, downward pressure on the premiums of private plans.

FredCPA1962: seems result would be more people IN a public option plan (thats cheaper). if thats the case, how do costs reduce vis a vis budget? if more pople are IN pub opt exchange versuion while fewwer are in priv plans. i dunnio. walk me thru this.

monkeyfelo: See again it shows that you don't read things before you make things up. Seeing as though the CBO score is for HR 3962 it does not take into account the Medicare doc fix which is HR 3961

FredCPA1962: please provide links for this data. and please refute if you could the CBO assumptions that i have stated that arrive at your number. which is false. in the real world, as the assumptions are not realistic. i am willing to look, if you have any data. i am not guessing. have you seen how the cbo sausage is made? you are aware i am sure they must follow the dictates of the legislation now matter how unrealistic the actual (and what past history would inform us) track record is.

FredCPA1962: does it take inot account revenues are raised for 10 years and costs are incurred for 8 years? i think it does. can we look at second 10 years. i was unaware the doc fix had been stripped out. so then the 109bil surplus is NOT including reducitons to hospital reimbursements. but does inlcude medicare cust of 500bill (10yr #)correct? am i on track with that one? what would be results of that? if indeed the final ver includes this. i beleive 3200 had it was pretty sure 3962 did include this.

monkeyfelo: Well gonna have to admit this is the last time I am going to "walk you through it" you should try googling things it is quite amazing. CBO estimates that only 6 million people will choose the public plan. The vast majority of people will continue to get their care through employer sponsored coverage. Benefits will continue to have a tax exclusion and so businesses will have a monetary incentive to continue to provide coverage for their employees.

FredCPA1962: yes guy. thats what they estimate. and that is where they are wrong. its cool. i am not going to walk you thru why they are wrong. you know in your heart that is rediculous.

FredCPA1962: but at some point if you care to, talk to someone who works with numbers all day long. who has done it for say 20-25 years. and they will tell you why the cbo is full of shit. in this regard. its your kharma dude. you still havent worked thru the math i have stated on why it is understated. please address (not here, in your own mind) my reasoning why it is a fallacy. i trust in you you to come to the correct conclusion. i have faith in you to really think this trough. good luck man.

FredCPA1962: and you still havent addressed the 8yr (rev)/10(yr)benefit donut hole vis a vis the 20 yr cost. please think that thru as well. or the 8% cost pr tax vs real costs of higher premiums for priv plans (INCLUDING new taxes loaded ontop). i know its not hard when you consider it all. you can hang your hat on cbo if you want. but there are many unaddressed issues i have raised here. i know they are inconvenient. i wish they werent. cause we both want the same thing. peace.

concretewater87: AMAZING signs!!!! "Let them eat Advil!" omg! hahaha

Author: BillsForWealthcare; Uploaded: Nov 6, 2009; Duration: 2:35; Views: 2482

Tags: billionaires  for  wealthcare  healthcare  health  care  america  teabag  teabagging  bachmann  congressman  congresswoman  randell  terry  protest  singing  song  wealthcare management wealthcare financial group wealthcare partnership wealthcare for billionaires wealthcare.com wealthcare capital management wealthcareers wealthcare ltd wealthcare bury wealthcare financial planning