The Senate Bill Saves Families Money

[jefferson_dem]

The Senate Bill Saves Families Money
Jonathan Cohn, Senior Editor of The New Republic

Dec 21, 2009

Health care reform looks like it’s finally ready to pass the Senate, now that the Democrats have 60 votes in hand. But here on the left, not all of us are jumping for joy. Some think the Senate bill is just barely better than nothing. Others think it’s worse than even that.

As this argument goes, health care reform won’t do all that much to help people who need it. Insurance will still be expensive and even people who have coverage will discover they owe significant out-of-pocket expenses once they get sick. A public insurance option might have made this tolerable, since it would have provided better, cheaper coverage. Without it, many of us are arguing, reform is just a big giveaway to the insurance industry--one that produces little social progress.

It’s certainly true that, under the terms of the Senate bill, insurance would cost more and cover less than many of us would prefer. But would it really produce little social progress? Is it really worse than nothing?

One way to answer this question is by comparing how a typical family would fare with reform and without. At my request, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber produced a set of figures, based on official Congressional Budget Office estimates. The results tell a pretty compelling story, particularly when put in human terms.



<SNIP>

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Columns/2009/December/122109Cohn.aspx

[NJmaverick]

1. Thanks for the post, as always knowledge is power

[Hello_Kitty]

2. Notice how they never illustrate it with singles or DINKs.

The lion's share of subsidies will go to families with children, while childless people will be presented with an enormous insurance premium. As usual, we get to subsidize other people's kids.

[girl gone mad]

21. Or people under age 40..

or people with access to cheap treatment outside of the country, etc. It's as if we're all families of 4 in our 40s making 40K. It's good that this group will see their net costs come down, at least temporarily, but don't pretend the rest of us aren't giving something up.

[Laelth]

3. Carry on, good soldier. I salute you. n/t

:patriot:

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[jefferson_dem]

4. And you...

Stay bitter...till the end.

Or not. Hop aboard the train of progress.

[Laelth]

6. Sorry. This is very personal to me, and I will fight it until the President signs it.

As for you, well, only you know your motivations for carrying the Party's dirty water.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[islandspirit]

5. Saves or Costs?

Wonder what percentage of taxes Canadians (for eg) pay for their health care. I happen to know it's nowhere near 23% - I believe it's between 7-8% percent of their income. And remember they have no co-pays, deductibles etc. They see the doctor & leave. Guess we just have to say last year was Wall Street prop up, 2009 will be the year of the health insurance industry - wonder which industry this administration will be loyal to in 2010? And when will taxpayers say.............enough already.

[Schema Thing]

7. Saves.

can't you read?

[silverweb]

8. K&R

Thank you.

[swilton]

9. These figures are meaningless

w/o also showing the costs, which by the way are controlled by the health insurance industries in both the house and senate bills.

[ipaint]

10. 17% of the income of a family at 150% above the poverty level

is affordable? 21% at two times the poverty level?

What planet do these assholes live on.

[phleshdef]

11. Considering thats the projected WORST CASE scenario, its much better than the current situation.

[asphalt.jungle]

12. when compared to the current 68%

it's down right cheap. Obviously 17% is still a high cost, but I'd rather go from 68% to 17% now and then worry about going lower than 17% in the future instead of leaving it at 68% because I can't get 8%.

[ipaint]

15. If 17% is unaffordable what's the difference???

It's still UNAFFORDABLE.

[asphalt.jungle]

16. even 2% might still be unaffordable to some in that bracket

so "what's the difference???"

basically we shouldn't make an effort because we can't go from 68% to 0?

[ipaint]

18. Drop the mandate that punishes those who can't afford it and

put all the "effort" in it you want. How can you mandate people to pay for something they don't have the money for???

That's absolutely stupid.

[karynnj]

14. Only if you reach the annual maximum

I know you CAN hit the maximum, but it is clearly not what usually happens. It is still far better than what happened before.

The premium is a about 5.4%. So, that is the least you would pay - I have no idea what the distribution of people between that and the max would look like.

[LooseWilly]

24. What are you talking about? The projected cost for a family of one at about 150% poverty line (me)

is about 17% of my income.

Of course... when your income is about 150% of poverty... rent tends to be something like 30 or 40%. And food and gas and auto insurance and liquor... another 30-40%.

This plan I might be able to cover... but I'll have to save up for months to do anything more extravagant than buy a sandwich. Or I'll have to eat into my savings.

Check the numbers at Kaiser's site: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx (Kaiser subsidy calculator) check on your numbers... or check on the numbers of someone earning 19k/year in a high price region. Underemployment, coupled with half assed subsidies (the mechanisms of which I don't even want to think about)... in this economy... add the two and you get "= the poor are fucked"

It should do wonders for reducing the rate of acceleration of rate hikes for the middle class soccer moms in suburbia, employed in stable corporate jobs, however. As always... the bread and butter of the Democratic (Corporate) Party.

Maybe they will provide all the votes the Democrats really want, in the end.

[SpartanDem]

25. 17% is total risk

if you should hit the max on co-pays and premiums. That is not your projected average yearly cost remember preventive care free so if all have are are check ups, mammograms colonoscopies,etc you have no co-pays.

[jeanpalmer]

29. Preventive care is free?

No one has to pay for it. Where are the doctors who are going to do this for free?

Don't you mean the cost will be shifted to someone else? Who will that be?

[usregimechange]

13. kick

[Bluenorthwest]

17. You mean will save Rick Warren/Donnie McClurkin approved

families money. The rest of us can suffer to pay for the bigotry of the majority, a wonderful view you have there. Family. It is now a term of art. And according to your community and the President, my family is just a bunch of unrelated strangers. We will pay more than our 'real citizen' peers'.

[and-justice-for-all]

19. Considering I am not allowed to get married....

those numbers really do not mean shit to me.

[ThomCat]

31. Right. Those of us who Are forced by law to stay single

will pay far more. We all know damned well that they're framing the married family of 4 because this is where they can show the most cost savings. They have set up the numbers so that the traditional nuclear family will save the most, and they are displaying that. Everyone else will save less and they don't want to make that obvious.

For those of us who can't get married because of DOMA, well, it's another big "Fuck You" from the Government.

[SpartanDem]

20. K&R

[jgraz]

22. OMG! The KAISER Foundation comes out in favor of mandatory health insurance????

What are the odds? :eyes:

[LooseWilly]

23. Not my family. It doesn't save us money. It costs us in around 17% of our income.

Your presumption that we're all wasting money currently on private health insurance is fallacious. Good day.

[damonm]

28. Then, what health insurance

IS your family currently wasting money on?

[LooseWilly]

32. none. we are opting out...

give us a public option and we'll sign up... but after watching the rate at which the private insurance rates were rising, we have Negative faith in the private insurance companies.

We save up the money we don't pay monthly to pay for anything we might need entirely out of pocket. Or to buy wine for medicinal purposes...

[damonm]

37. OK, so then WE are

...paying for you.
Because, unless you're wealthy enough to be among GWB's "base" as he called them, then ONE major illness or injury (God forbid) will wipe out those savings in a matter of weeks. And then you become the taxpayers' problem, which is exactly what the mandate is trying to avoid.
Is it good? NO.
Would a public option be better? YES.
Would Single-Payer be best? HELL, yes.

But we're not getting either of them. Not now, and if the "bill-killers" have their way, not ever in my lifetime.

[jeanpalmer]

26. Who's paying the $10,000

difference between the unsubsidized cost of $12,042 and the premium paid by the family of four of $1,966?

[frazzled]

27. Your gubmint

It's called subsidies. It's what's in the bill. If we kill it, and you want insurance--if you can even get it--you'll have to pay the 12,042. If you think that would be a good deal for lower income Americans, clap your hands three times and keep clapping until someone's kids die. This is not a game. This means something to real people.

[jeanpalmer]

30. That's not true

The $12,042 will be paid, by someone, because the program is revenue neutral to the government. The difference has to be made up by someone in the system. And that person is the young healthy person who now pays $0 for healthcare, but under this scam will be paying $5,000.

The chart that jefferson dem put up is deceptive. It makes the assumption, like you do, that everyone now buys insurance and so the choice, to you, is buy insurance at the high rate or at the subsidized rate. The truth is many people, especially healthy or younger people, don't pay anything now because they don't buy insurance and their health care expenses are minimal or non-existent. The chart for these people would look something like this: annual income single person -- $55,000; cost without reform legislation - $0; cost with reform legislation - $5,000. And there are millions of people in that category who are going to experience huge increases in health care costs because of these mandates.

And yes, they are real people.

If you're going to put up a chart, be honest.

[frazzled]

33. I am paying for your "healthy" young person right now

Every country that has national health care, universal health care, single-payer health care, requires universal participation. Yes, mandates. Because that is the only way the system can work. And, despite what ignorant people here think, it is not free: it is paid for through premiums to regulated insurance companies (Switzerland, Netherlands) or by premiums to the government, through taxes and additional insurance.

Right now, when your healthy young person who refuses to buy insurance gets knocked over on their bicycle and spends 3 days in ICU and a week in rehab, we who pay for insurance pay their bills. When your supposedly healthy young person develops an unforeseen medical condition, we pay for it. Participation is a part of the system.

Your libertarian rant is as UN-progressive as it gets. Mandates have been a part of the progressive health care reform plan for years now. I have young adult children (in their 20s) and they wouldn't dream of going without health care. There was a time when my daughter was unemployed and desperate to get health care (with our help) but was turned down because of a pre-existing condition, although otherwise healthy. With this bill the insurers would not have been able to do that.

In this bill, young people up to age 26 will be able to stay on their parents' insurance. After that, if they earn lower or middle-class salaries, they will get some kind of subsidy to purchase it.

Someone earning $55,000 and refusing to get insurance is a cancer on this society. They can well afford 8% of their income (which by the way, is less than $5,000 and the limit on the requirement to purchase it). They should not have a cell-phone bill, a cable television bill, a health-club membership or any other luxury until they step up to the plate and do their responsibility in our common health-care crisis. I'm shocked that someone in that position would not have health insurance. I call them selfish and stupid.

If you're going to rail about mandates ... at least be honest about it. We pay through the nose for the uninsured now. It's time to get them on board. It's the only way to fix the system.

[truedelphi]

36. Supposedly the government will be able to make some "cuts" into MediCare

Five Hundred and some Billon dollars worth of cutrs.

The Democratic leadership says that this will only affect the "Fat" in the program, but as someone who has already seen doctors who care for the elderly leaving the MediCare program by the droves, I do not believe it.

Also, some 40 billion dollars worth of cuts will apply to the 'in home Senior and disabled care giver program.' So this means a whole new group will be un or under employed. And the Seniors and disabled will be without help.

Then to further ensure that the program is deficit neutral some

"ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY SIX BILLION BUCKS IN PENALTIES"

will come out of the pockets of those "scofflaws" among us that fall short of the Health Insurance Police, and all the paperwork that is involved.

[truedelphi]

35. None of this is made very clear, is it?

As far as my thinking, if Keith Olbermann has been railing against this bill, then it probably does stink to high heaven.

[Barack_America]

34. And compared to the House bill?

[PassingFair]

38. This is for people buying policies direct from the insurers. What do the numbers look like for ....

those with company subsidized health care?

(The vast majority)

Will we be taxed to the max premium and out of pocket rates?

[Maraya1969]

39. I posted this yesterday and it was un'rec'd out. Thank you for posting it again.

I really think the un'rec thing needs to go. Too many trolls on here just hitting it every time something good is said about our President or our Democratic representatives.