How much does President Obama expect us to pay for health care?

[slipslidingaway]

http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/02/22/how-much-does-president-obama-expect-us-to-pay-for-health-care/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

The President’s Proposal
The White House
February 22, 2010

"Policies to Improve Affordability and Accountability

Example for a family of four with income of $66,000:

Maximum percent of income paid for premiums: 9.5%

Percent of costs paid by health insurance plan: 70%

Penalty for remaining uninsured: (in 2016) the higher of $695 (with indexed increases) or 2.5% of income

Hardship exemption – threshold income below which the penalty is waived: The income tax filing threshold ($9,350 for a single or $18,700 for a married couple in 2009)..."


Comment by Don McCanne MD

http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/02/22/how-much-does-president-obama-expect-us-to-pay-for-health-care/

"The greatest significance of President Obama’s health care reform proposal released today is that he has now formally placed his stamp of approval on the fundamental policies already contained in the House and Senate reform bills. While remaining silent on some of the third rail issues (public option, Medicare buy-in, pregnancy termination, etc.), he and his staff merely tweaked the bills and added insurance premium rate review, whatever that’s worth, and some rhetoric on waste, fraud, and abuse.

His proposal still falls far short on two of the most important goals of reform: 1) insuring everyone, and 2) ensuring that health care is affordable for each of us. Merely tweaking the Senate version, which is what they did, could not have attained these goals since the most effective policies were already traded away before serious negotiations began.

That said, let’s look at what the President expects a family of four with an income of $66,000 to pay for health care. The premium contribution would be 9.5% of income, or $6270 for the basic plan with an actuarial value of 70%. If they wanted or needed a better plan, they would have to pay the full difference in the premium. At an actuarial value of 70%, they would also have to pay an average of 30% of all health care costs. This can vary considerably because of plan design in the form of deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, non-covered benefits, stop loss, out-of-network care exempt from stop loss, and other factors. If they either elected not to or were unable to pay the premium, they would have to pay a penalty of $1650, but then, of course, they would have no protection at all against potential health care costs.

Clearly, President Obama has not done any better than Congress in protecting families from financial hardship should they have the misfortune of developing significant medical problems. Unaffordable underinsurance is not the change that we needed."

[dysfunctional press]

1. "threshold income below which the penalty is waived:"

so- i assume that means they won't have healthcare, either.

rather than waiving the PENALTY for the ultra-poor, why don't they waive the PREMIUMS?

i HATE this fucking sorry excuse of a country more and more with each passing day.

[sandnsea]

5. They do. It's called Medicaid. n/t

[ProSense]

6. It's spin with a constantly

moving goal post.

[sandnsea]

10. I really don't get the motivation

These folks really would have opposed every single social program we've ever created because not one of them was perfect in its inception. People had to pay 3 years into social security before anybody got a check. Can you imagine the screaming around here if Obama proposed something like that?

[PHIMG]

31. Are you trying to impugn PNHP?

Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 17,000 members and chapters across the United States.

Since 1987, we've advocated for reform in the U.S. health care system. We educate physicians and other health professionals about the benefits of a single-payer system--including fewer administrative costs and affording health insurance for the 46 million Americans who have none.

Our members and physician activists work toward a single-payer national health program in their communities. PNHP performs ground breaking research on the health crisis and the need for fundamental reform, coordinates speakers and forums, participates in town hall meetings and debates, contributes scholarly articles to peer-reviewed medical journals, and appears regularly on national television and news programs advocating for a single-payer system.

PNHP is the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.

Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) believes that access to high-quality health care is a right of all people and should be provided equitably as a public service rather than bought and sold as a commodity.

The mission of PNHP is therefore to educate physicians, other health workers, and the general public on the need for a comprehensive, high-quality, publicly-funded health care program, equitably-accessible to all residents of the United States.

Equitable accessibility requires, in the view of PNHP, removal of the barriers to adequate health care currently faced by the uninsured, the poor, minority populations and immigrants, both documented and undocumented.

PNHP views this campaign as part of the campaign for social justice in the United States. PNHP opposes for-profit control, and especially corporate control, of the health system and favors democratic control, public administration, and single-payer financing.

PNHP believes this program should be financed by truly progressive taxation. PNHP actively opposes current changes in the health care system that are designed to maximize the profits of investors and the incomes of high-level executives rather than to serve patients.

PNHP's goal is the restoration of what it views as the primary mission of physicians, acting as professional advocates for our patients.

PNHP is an independent, non-partisan, voluntary organization. PNHP's work is supported by our members' dues and contributions, and by grants from progressive foundations; it accepts no funding from pharmaceutical companies or other for-profit entities. PNHP organizes physicians, medical students, other health workers, and the public in support of this program and promotes discussion of health policy in the U.S. through conferences, lectures, articles, and other methods.

[Egnever]

34. Yes

well I am. What they are advocating sounds great but doesnt have a chance in hell of getting passed. Maybe your problem is with what they are calling this "health care reform" when its really health insurance reform. No matter what utopia you are advocating for and i like most of them what we are going to get in the end isnt going to approach them.

Having said that something needs to be done if only about pre-existing conditions and revisions and thats getting done. On top of that a whole lot of people will be getting help paying their premiums that they wouldnt be getting before.

If phnp is part of the my way or they highway crowd then they are fuckwits. Pure and simple.

Sure a better bill could be and should be written but that doesnt mean this one wont be a step forward despite it having problems.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

42. Oh, you were talking to me, oops

Egnever answered quite nicely though.

I know what PNHP is. They used to be the key group I recommended for donations for health care reform advocates.

But when they discovered they weren't going to get to take a national lead on single payer, they've been sitting in their turd pile ever since. In short, they lie.

Sad to say, but it's true.

They're fitting the "facts" to the policy, just as badly as any of the Bushies ever did.

But they aren't the ones I was referring to in my post anyway.

[PHIMG]

43. PNHP lies?

You are saying a group that publishes peer-reviewed research in scholarly journals lik the Journal of the AMA to back up thier point of view, lies?

That's very interesting! A bold claim. Care to back it up with any evidence?

I won't hold my breath.

[Egnever]

49. Once again I'll jump in here.

from the article we are discussing here.

"If they either elected not to or were unable to pay the premium, they would have to pay a penalty of $1650, but then, of course, they would have no protection at all against potential health care costs."

This is a lie. Under all three of the proposals you can no longer be denied for pre existing conditions. So that 1650 ensures that if they come down with something with the potential of either catastrophic health care costs or ongoing high costs they can pick up insurance at any time. So they are protected a direct lie from php right in the article linked here.

Also they lie by omission they complain of the cost of Obamas plan without informing you that the national average for the same plan is currently two times that cost now.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm
The average cost of a family policy offered by employers was $13,375 this year, up 5% from 2008, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust survey found. By comparison, wages rose 3% over that period, the study said.

So theres two lies for you right there in just the article presented here. I am quite sure theres plenty more.

[slipslidingaway]

62. Again see reply #67 before calling others liars, the article and survey

you mention says the employee contribution was $3515.

[slipslidingaway]

79. Should be post #58, not #67...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7774492&mesg_id=7776817

[Dr.Phool]

75. Everybody should just quit their whining.

We should all take a small percentage of our bonuses and buy health insurance.

You did get your bonus, right?

Everybody that Congress and the President listens to got one.

[AzDar]

81. This.

:thumbsup:

[slipslidingaway]

8. Yes, it is all about profits and not health care :( n/t

[roguevalley]

36. 6700 dollars is half of what a lot of people I know make. then you

penalize them for this and all the rest of us who are living on a razor's edge? Fuck them all. A pox on every one of them. All of them.

[Egnever]

44. its also half of what people are paying now on average

for those policies.

Yes fuck them for cutting millions of peoples health care bills by 50%

[slipslidingaway]

63. See reply #67 n/t

[slipslidingaway]

80. See post #58, not # 67 what you are saying is not true ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7774492&mesg_id=7776817

[RevCheesehead]

2. At this point, it's not "how much", but rather, "HOW??"

:banghead:

[leftstreet]

4. +1

Ya got that right!

[slipslidingaway]

11. Exactly, people went bankrupt when they had policies with an actuarial

value of 80%.

[RevCheesehead]

17. I am quickly becoming one of them.

Cobra payments for JUST ME = $650/month. I am getting my physical, stocking up on meds & cutting dosages in half, because come July, I'll either run out of money and/or cobra coverage.

[slipslidingaway]

19. No other industrialized nation does this to their citizens ...

hoping things take a turn for the better.

:hug:

[RevCheesehead]

28. Thanks.

:hug:

[Lorien]

20. I had to stop paying for my coverage two months ago

I can't find enough work to keep a roof over my head, the lights on, food on the table AND my private insurance policy paid. Something had to give, and since I've paid over $78,000 for this insurance since the late 1990's and THEY have only paid out $200.00 in benefits in return....:banghead: :grr: :mad:

[slipslidingaway]

33. The amount of profits are just crazy...

so many people need things to start changing now and not be a giveaway to invetors.

[ProSense]

3. .

:rofl:

[sandnsea]

7. MAXIMUM would be $522 a month

for a family of four with a household income of $66,000.

And the problem is??

What do you think these people are paying now?

[slipslidingaway]

13. For a policy with a 70% actuarial value, can someone have the nerve

to look at other HC systems that are not bankrupting people.

[sandnsea]

21. Those with incomes under $33,000 have 90% paid

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/whatsnew/affordability

[slipslidingaway]

29. Where are you reading that??? nt

[sandnsea]

39. The same place the 70% figure came from

Maybe you should read the plan instead of phnp.

[slipslidingaway]

64. Do not see that listed under the President's proposal maybe you are looking

at the Senate column?

But the OP was speaking of a family earning $66,000, but really the actuarial value begins to drop to the underinsured status for a family making $44,000. The Senate proposal has it listed at 70% and the President's plan has it listed at 73%, these lower actuarial values start to place people in the underinsured category.


Trends In Underinsurance And The Affordability Of Employer Coverage, 2004-2007
By Jon R. Gabel, Roland McDevitt, Ryan Lore, Jeremy Pickreign, Heidi Whitmore and Tina Ding
Health Affairs
June 2, 2009

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/10/27/the-actuarial-squeeze-on-low-and-middle-income-families/


"The Health Affairs article by Jon Gabel and his colleagues shows that plans with an 80% actuarial value are not providing adequate financial protection to individuals with modest incomes who need health care. Having a plan with an 80% actuarial value can place you in the ranks of the underinsured.

Basic coverage under the proposals before Congress would provide an actuarial value of 65% or 70%. That means that the patients would be responsible for the remaining 30% or 35% of health care costs, although the proposals would limit the total amount for which the patients are responsible under the plans. Patients also would be responsible for out-of-network services and for services and products not covered by their plans.

If there is a cap on out-of-pocket spending, then why should the precise actuarial value make difference? Simply, the lower the actuarial value, the greater the likelihood that the patient will have to spend the full amount up to the cap. Thus more individuals will be negatively impacted. Also, the amount of the cap makes a very big difference. The proposed caps on out-of-pocket spending, when added to the patient’s share of the premium, create a financial hardship for most low and middle income individuals and families..."

[quiller4]

84. That was my response, too. We are a family of 2 with an income

of $56,000 paying $750/mo for $3,500 deductible 75/25 coverage now.

[Oregone]

9. Who cares? We need a win! Pass the bill!

Bomb Afghanis! And get Joe the Plumber a fucking tax break already, again!

[slipslidingaway]

15. That is exactly what is happening. n/t

[Gecko6400]

56. Yes! Damn the torpedoes (consequences), full speed ahead.

[western mass]

12. As much as the HC industry wants you to pay

We don't seriously think that the same politicians who pushed this massive handout / giveaway to the health care industry are going to regulate their premiums in any reasonable way. Do we?

[slipslidingaway]

16. I do not, especially since they just seemed to realize it was a problem

2 weeks ago.

[salguine]

14. I ask again: Explain to me why I should fear a Republican winning the White House in 2012.

[slipslidingaway]

18. Democrats always work for the people, Republicans always work

for investors.

:sarcasm:

The Democrats know that most people will vote for the lesser of two evils, although when you look at what it has accomplished, maybe people should fear less. Also too many Democrats went along with the Republican ideas instead of standing up for people.

[Lorien]

23. Both parties work for Investors. The only real difference is in the extremes

and the fact that the repugs want to force their theology on all of us and strip away many civil rights for minorities and women.

[slipslidingaway]

25. Just edited my reply above to include the sarcasm tag ...

the Dems are doing OK on stripping away civil rights.

:(

[tomp]

26. phew! nt

[tomp]

24. you didn't really say..."democrats always work for the people...", did you?

i mean, really, did you just actually say that?

[slipslidingaway]

27. Just added ...

:sarcasm:

this to my post, unfortunately not enough have been working for the people, some really do try.

[tomp]

30. see my post #27. nt

[slipslidingaway]

32. Got it :) n/t

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

35. An arm, a leg, whatever makes the insurance industry happy,

And keeps the funds flowing into his coffers, the ones that come from his corporate sponsors.

[slipslidingaway]

37. This has the potential to do great harm to our country, we cannot afford

to pay these profits long term and continue draining people's bank accounts.

I know, it already has done great harm.

[upi402]

40. If the turnips have no blood, what then?

Prison labor for healthcare debtors?

[slipslidingaway]

61. Good question :( n/t

[Spike from MN]

69. Please, don't give them any ideas.

I wouldn't put anything past them at this point.

[Egnever]

41. What you and others that want to cry about this fail to realize

is thats half of what people are paying today on average.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm
The average cost of a family policy offered by employers was $13,375 this year, up 5% from 2008, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust survey found. By comparison, wages rose 3% over that period, the study said

if instead your article said Obama wants to slash your health care cost by 50% would you be railing at him like you are now? Or would you be instead praising him for trying to improve the lives of millions of americans as you should be?

[slipslidingaway]

60. See post #67, average employee contribution is $3,515, are you comparing apples

to apples.

If Obama had figured out a way to cut everyone's premium in half, then one would think the administration would be shouting that from the rooftops.

They are not - why not???

Reply #67

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7774492&mesg_id=7776817

[Egnever]

90. No PHNP is trying to spin you

That is the average cost of health care for all be it employer based or individualy bought and the number from obamas proposal is maximum premium period be it employer based or individualy bought. You are being played for a fool, perhaps with a good goal in mind but you are being played just the same. You cant claim one set of numbers and then try to claim another.

Once again the average for all people according to kaiser be it employer based or individualy bought is twice what Obama is saying you can be held responsible for. It doesnt matter one whit weather your employer pays a part of it or not that is compensation you are recieving instead of salary you are paying that cost indirectly through your employer.

Your spin in an attempt to discredit this proposal is laughable makes one wonder what it is you are trying to accomplish.

[slipslidingaway]

78. My mistake - see post #58 for the numbers in the Kaiser Survey...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7774492&mesg_id=7776817

[Kablooie]

45. My cobra insurance is going to cost $14,000 a year and I don't have a job.

[PHIMG]

46. What our system would force you to do in your own self interest

This would be illegal of course but you hear of people doing the following.

Basically hiding all their assets.

Going on Medicaid and when Medicaid fails to provide adequate coverage going over seas with the hidden funds on medical tourism.

Paying Cobra is stupid. When you use the coveage they'll find a way to screw you out of your premiums.

If you have $14,000 self insure your self, pay out of pocket for the small stuff and if disaster strikes go on Medicaid or self-pay over seas when it's bad.

Nothing on the table in D.C. is going to change what's going on in Healthcare.

This fiasco is going to set the stage for the uprising (non-violent hopefully) it will take to get real change in this country.

[Egnever]

47. You must not have a family or be responsible for anyone with health issues

Easy for you to say paying cobra is stupid. Not so easy for someone with a pre existing condition who has to cary health insurance or forever be banned from being insured at all.

I now realize where you are coming from. You seem to be under the impression that all health issues are temporary or somehow curable and that once you go pay for your procedure all is well again and you go on your merry way. You must be young and healthy to have such a cavalier attitude to wards peoples health. It is not a joke and the reality in America is that you can be left with no health insurance at all and no way to pay for recurring health bills. For many people the $14,000 paid to cobra is a drop in the bucket to what their actual health care bills can be.

"Nothing on the table in D.C. is going to change what's going on in Healthcare"

Utter hogwash! There may be parts of this bill that have the potential to cause hardship for some but the majority of people in this country will see their health care situation improved by this bill. You need to stop sucking up propaganda from every source that spews it at you and actually read the bills for yourself there is plenty to like in both of these bills and plenty that will change many aspects of health care as we know it.


The lead article in this OP is a perfect example of the propaganda you are sucking up. The story is all about how horrible Obama is for wanting you to pay 6k a year as a family of four for health care all the while failing to mention that the national average for the same plan is twice that. Its propaganda pure and simple and you are here cheering it like a mindless sheeple.

[PHIMG]

48. I'm under the very well educated impression

that private insurance, esp bought by UNEMPLOYED people on COBRA -- is an overpriced defective product. Wen you get sick the private insurers will do anything, including break the law, to screw you out of getting what you paid for - HEALTH CARE.

It's time for us to stop confusing health insurance with health care. a lot on this board are guilty of doing this intentionally. for what purpose i'll leave it to the reader to judge.

If you are unemployed that $14,000 is better off spent at a community health center on the sliding scale discount, or overseas via medical tourism, than buying private insurance. And lets not forget that if you get sick the total outlay is going to be your $14,000 in premiums, PLUS your deductibles and copayments, so your total out of pocket could be even higher.


That's the issue with healthcare. private insurance is a joke. It makes less and less sense to people can afford it and that's why the insurance companies need a bailout (hey Congress - Mandate and subsidize my defective product!)

If you want everyone in, then it needs to be a public plan like Medicare but Obama and Rahm and the rest think that corporate power is too hard to beat, i guess when you are cashing thier checks its hard to think otherwise, right?

[Egnever]

50. You seem only able to rail against what you don't like about insurance

While turning a blind eye to what the legislation changes about that insurance. An amazing ability to look around pesky facts you have there.

Odd how I have quoted the national average cost as it currently stands for that family plan according to kaiser as being twice what this article says Obamas average cost would be yet you conveniently seem able to ignore it time and again.

You seem well versed in how you are currently getting "screwed" yet totally ignorant of how the current legislation as proposed tries to address that. Why is that? Its like you have a gapping blind spot in your "education"

[PHIMG]

51. Like i keep saying...keep polishing that turd. n/t

Let me know how the American people enjoy being told they need to buy a defective product from the very people who have screwed up our healthcare or get fined 2% of thier income.

Let me know how many people trust the Democrats after learning of the above provision, and see all the Democrats did keep Single Payer, a Public Option, or a Medicare buy-in off the table and out of the bill.

We'll see how many independents vote Democratic after their employers gut the company health care plan to avoid the excise tax.

We'll see how many people reward the Democratic party for forking over hundreds of billionss of dollars over to the private insurance industry in the form of corporate welfare, neh "subsidies", neh "affordability credits".

Keep polishing that turd and keep pineing for your Pryrric victory. Big Insurance and the Republicans hope your wish comes true.

[Egnever]

52. As long as you keep spewing propaganda I'll continue to expose your ignorance of the reality

So many things wrong with your continued republican talking points.

Employers are not the ones that pay the excise tax the insurance companies are unless the employer is self insured. So your theory that employers will gut the company health care plan is yet more ignorance on your part and a direct talking point of those wishing to kill health care reform. Heres what the bill actually says

‘‘(c) LIABILITY TO PAY TAX.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each coverage provider
shall pay the tax imposed by subsection (a) on its
applicable share of the excess benefit with respect to
an employee for any taxable period.
‘‘(2) COVERAGE PROVIDER.—For purposes of
this subsection, the term ‘coverage provider’ means each of the following:
‘‘(A) HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—If
the applicable employer-sponsored coverage con
sists of coverage under a group health plan
which provides health insurance coverage, the
health insurance issuer.

Meaning the health insurance company in most cases will be the ones paying the tax not the employer. Also the level at which this kicks in is well above what the national average is now so very few except the ultra wealthy will be affected by and it is tied to cola increases so it will remain well above what the majority of people are getting or ever got as far as health care benefits.

Mark that as one of your republican talking points knocked down.

85% of the american people are already buying that defective product so for the vast majority of the country there will be no change in their situation whatsoever and every single one of those 85% of the country will no longer have to worry about pre existing conditions or being dropped because they get sick So my bet is most of those 85% are gonna be pretty freaking pleased about it. Of the other 15% of the country many of those are people who currently are denied health coverage or are unable to afford it of those all of the ones that are denied are now going to be able to once again purchase insurance and the majority of those that cant afford it will get assistance in affordablity, a portion of them will even now qualify for medicaid where they didn't before at no cost whatsoever to themselves.

Mark that as two of your republican talking points knocked down.

We will see how they like it in the end My bet is despite all the wailing from the pukes and people like you in the end most will end up pleasantly surprised and wonder what all the screaming was about once it finally kicks in. Of course the Dem's may pay a price for it because of uninformed morons who rail against their own self interest convincing them that grandma is going before a death panel or other such nonsense you seem to be on board for repeating but when the reality of what is in the bill actually kicks in much like when the reality of george bush finally set in many of them will realize their mistake and conveniently forget they ever complained about it in the first place(or in the case of bush voted for him).

I suspect you will be one of those people if you aren't already.

Read the bill its not that hard. Stop letting others tell you whats in it cause many of them are just repeating what they heard is in it or have an agenda that doesn't coincide with your best interests.

Nope its not single payer and yes it could be better but its still pretty damn good for most Americans and is a vast improvement on the situation we are in now. Stop fooling yourself that you aren't forced to buy insurance now cause you are, unless of course you are willing to fork over the thousands of dollars one accident will cost you when you end up in the hospital. Make no mistake be it time catching up to you or some accident you will wind up there eventually.

[Kablooie]

57. My son and I both have pre existing conditions and I have to take daily medication for life.

If I dropped it, I would probably not be able to continue my medication and then I couldn't function well enough to find another job.
With the medication, I am fine.

[PHIMG]

82. In that case you should go up to Canada and buy in bulk.

I'm just saying, you have to evaluate all your options, and if more and more people decide to opt out of the private insurance company racket by exploring all the options and taking the best option we'd be closer to a real functional healthcare system.

Saving the health insurers with the bailout that is the Private Insurer Profit and Preservation Act prevents the best outcome - Medicare for All.

The idea that people face these choices is ridiculous. $14,000 a year for healthcare! In Canada per capita spending is like $6k and everyone is covered from cradle to grave. Doesnt' that make you angry?

[slipslidingaway]

67. We really need to address our whole system instead of trying to

build on the system we have. A friend who has a very small company recently hired two people, but he could not afford to pay them very much in addition to the HC benefits. They are basically working for benefits, a small salary and then percentage of any business they bring into the firm.

:hi:

[Jamastiene]

53. Our government needs to wake up and notice one major thing:

You can't get blood from a turnip.

If they don't give us jobs, yet they expect us to buy mandated insurance, where is the money going to come from? How do they expect people who are flat broke and struggling just to eat and have a roof over our heads to buy a mandated product?

It's bullshit.

If only they had bothered to provide jobs and other relief for this god-awful depression we are in FIRST, this wouldn't be half as bad. But the way they are going about this (backasswards, cart before the horse) is just going to piss people off and ensure a damn Republican majority STRONGHOLD on our Congress. That's the LAST fucking thing we need.

[slipslidingaway]

65. True, mandated purchase of private insurance:( And it has only been

in the last couple of weeks that they started to address the issue of premiums. If they missed that big of a problem for the past year and failed to address it in the proposed bills, what else have they missed.

[Vinca]

54. 9.5% of income would be bargain basement rates the way things are going . . .

if the policy actually covers anything. That's my worry. Why does this have to be so complicated? Why not single payer funded by an extra couple of points on taxes?

[slipslidingaway]

59. My worry as well as more costs are being shifted to the employee

even if there is a maximum deductible per year, once a family or an individual starts having to pay that year after year it puts a real strain on finances.

Also there are additional charges for items not covered under the plan and out of network charges.

[stray cat]

55. How much do you pay for it now - or do the rest of us pay for you because you don't have coverage?

[slipslidingaway]

93. Rather nasty comment and none of your business. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

58. From the 2009 Kaiser Survey posted in this thread a few times which claims

the President's plan will cut premiums in half.

This study looks at employer-sponsored plans and says that on average the employEE contribution was $3515.

The number of $13,375 being used in posts here is the total of the plan, but $9860 is paid by the employER.

The President's plan quoted in the original OP speaks of the maximum a family of four earning $66,000 will pay for a plan is $6270.

The Kaiser study posted in this thread says that the average employee contribution is $3515 for a plan costing a total of $13,375.

Which is less ... $3515 or $6270.

:shrug:


http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091509nr.cfm

"Family Health Premiums Reach $13,375 Annually in 2009 Up 5 Percent as Inflation Fell Nearly 1 Percent...


WASHINGTON, D.C.—Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose to $13,375 annually for family coverage this year—with employees on average paying $3,515 and employers paying $9,860, according to the benchmark 2009 Employer Health Benefits Survey released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust (HRET).

Family premiums rose about 5 percent this year, which is much more than general inflation (which fell 0.7 percent during the same period, mostly due to falling energy prices). Workers wages went up 3.1 percent during the same period. Since 1999, premiums have gone up a total of 131 percent, far more rapidly than workers’ wages (up 38 percent since 1999) or inflation (up 28 percent since 1999). For the past few years, the annual rise in premiums has been more moderate than the double-digit growth experienced earlier this decade...

...Among those firms offering benefits, 21 percent report they reduced the scope of health benefits or increased cost sharing due to the economic downturn, and 15 percent report they increased the worker’s share of the premium..."


Employer Health Benefits 2009 Annual Survey

Full report

http://ehbs.kff.org/?CFID=2577757&CFTOKEN=77515267&jsessionid=6030d77eb4c62aa0ce582c42e1134f31493d

[OllieLotte]

66. President Obama's proposal doesn't address the problem.

The main problem is that health care is expensive. Transferring the cost to someone else doesn't change that fact and likely adds to the total cost. The focus should be on getting cost down. Look at the cost of lasik eye surgery. Insurance companies don't usually pay for it. Doctors advertise it all of the time. It about the only type of medical proceedure that the price as fallen. Why, because people pay the actual cost of the proceedure themselves and doctors advertise the price.

[Better Believe It]

68. Just noticed this had already been posted. K & R

[slipslidingaway]

70. No problem, we'll just reference your other thread ...

thanks for posting.

:)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7776553&mesg_id=7776553

[slipslidingaway]

71. For my reference, did not show up in my DU, but this will. n/t

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slipslidingaway]

73. You leave out lots of information. n/t

[Dr.Phool]

74. The average time a troll lasts on DU?

Less time than it takes to use words like socialized, that you don't understand.

[Better Believe It]

76. The Truth and Myths About Health Care in Canada

Debunking Canadian health care myths
By Rhonda Hackett
Denver Post
June 7, 2009

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.

Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.

While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.

Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.

From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn't the big bad "socialist" bogeyman it has been made out to be.


Read about the other myths regarding Canadian health care at:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427

[Feron]

77. You do realize that Americans wait for care.

I've waited months for a neurosurgeon appointment and I know someone that waits six months to see a cardiologist.

Of course if you don't have health insurance or money, then you will not get any care until it is an full blown emergency that will likely kill you. Or if it's not life threatening, then you simply go without medical care completely.

And even insurance won't guarantee that you will get medical care. When I injured my back, BCBS said that my condition was pre-existing and refused to pay for any care for it. And because I'm not made of money, I went without medical care. Best system in the world! :sarcasm:

At least in countries with socialized medicine, people don't lose their homes or go bankrupt simply because the person had the misfortune to get sick or become severely injured.

Oh and nice copy/paste you have there. Nice scaremongering attempt. If socialized medicine is so bad, then why aren't American retirees dying in droves prematurely?

My grandmother has Tricare and Medicare and it beats the hell out of any private insurance I've ever had. She can actually choose her doctor and only paid for prescriptions out of pocket after her last hospitalization. Try doing that with private insurance--Ha!

[amborin]

83. k&R i suspect Obama opposes the PO b/c it's the main thing that will hold down costs, &, therefore,

profits

[slipslidingaway]

87. It is what the insurance companies wanted, mandates without any

or a very weak public option, sometimes it does not become any clearer.

What happened to the all the talk...

'I'm in favor of the public option because it will lead to SP' ... maybe the original Hacker plan would have done that, not the PO in proposed legislation.

What a diversion from real solutions and health care for all.

:(

[earth mom]

85. Obama should just call that 9.5% for the MANDATED TAX that it is.

:grr:


The powers that be want to literally tax us out of house & home!!!

We should NOT be charged ADDITIONAL taxes for health care!!!

Health care should come from the taxes we ALREADY pay!!!

[slipslidingaway]

88. Yes, we already spend almost twice as much, throw people on the

street when they have to declare bankruptcy and have worse outcomes.

Anyone who objects to that must have a problem.

:(

[Jakes Progress]

86. Whoops. Insurance stock just went through the roof. nt

[slipslidingaway]

89. They have backed off, but curious to see if the biotechs hold up. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

91. Short term.

The prognosis for Insurance stocks is indicative of an assurance of huge profits. Government guaranteed profits. Tax payer guaranteed profits.

[slipslidingaway]

92. Yes, just following the general trend, but we'll see. n/t