Reply With Quote
That's not something to be excited about. It's a crap piece of legislation that will only make things worse.
That is pitiful praise.
That's not something to be excited about. It's a crap piece of legislation that will only make things worse.
How will it make things worse? Please provide specifics when you break down the ramifications of this legislation.
The senate bill is paid for by taxes on the cadillac plans and cuts in medicare reimbursements to the states. The insurance companies will distribute those taxes along to all of their policy holders, whether they have cadillac plans or not, because they don't want to run off the cadillac plan holders. End result, premiums go up.
By cutting the medicare reimbursements to the states, the federal government is merely playing a s game where the cost of one program is covered by shortchanging another. The states would then have to decide how to make up for those lost reimbursements, with the only two options being a reduction in service to those on medicare, or new tax increases to make up for the lost funding. End result, taxes go up, or the quality of care goes down.
The theory goes that premiums will go down once everyone is forced to buy insurance, but no one seems to be able to quantify that. Certainly not in any detail near to how much has been put into how much the thing will cost. Also of concern is the fact that the current plan does not address what we're to do with the illegals.
Basically what we have is the people speaking up and saying health care is too expensive and the insurance companies are a bunch of meanies. The government's response to the people is "give us a trillion dollars, buy insurance and cross your fingers". Some people look at that and say "hey, wait a second", some people choose to grab their pom-poms and say "yay healthcare reform".
And if that's not enough for you then just think about who you're dealing with here. Look at medicare, look at social security, look at the budget. Look at how screwed up those all are and then tell me why I should believe for one second that the same buffoons who created those disasters are going to be able to pull this off. Asking the U.S. government to fix healthcare is like asking Isiah Thomas to make the Spurs championship contenders again.
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 03-09-2010 at 04:09 PM.
Where's the source?The senate bill is paid for by taxes on the cadillac plans and cuts in medicare reimbursements to the states. The insurance companies will distribute those taxes along to all of their policy holders, whether they have cadillac plans or not, because they don't want to run off the cadillac plan holders. End result, premiums go up.
By cutting the medicare reimbursements to the states, the federal government is merely playing a s game where the cost of one program is covered by shortchanging another. The states would then have to decide how to make up for those lost reimbursements, with the only two options being a reduction in service to those on medicare, or new tax increases to make up for the lost funding. End result, taxes go up, or the quality of care goes down.
Where's the source?
So you criticize the lack of detail yet your response to my question is lacking details. Got it.The theory goes that premiums will go down once everyone is forced to buy insurance, but no one seems to be able to quantify that. Certainly not in any detail near to how much has been put into how much the thing will cost. Also of concern is the fact that the current plan does not address what we're to do with the illegals.
You're making this up.Basically what we have is the people speaking up and saying health care is too expensive and the insurance companies are a bunch of meanies. The government's response to the people is "give us a trillion dollars, buy insurance and cross your fingers". Some people look at that and say "hey, wait a second", some people choose to grab their pom-poms and say "yay healthcare reform".
And if that's not enough for you then just think about who you're dealing with here. Look at medicare, look at social security, look at the budget. Look at how screwed up those all are and then tell me why I should believe for one second that the same buffoons who created those disasters are going to be able to pull this off. Asking the U.S. government to fix healthcare is like asking Isiah Thomas to make the Spurs championship contenders again.
Nothing again. No specifics and your (or someone else's) opinion. I'll wait for the do entation to back up your post. You do have that, don't you?
The Senate Bill Lowers Non-Group Premiums: Updated for New CBO Estimates
Jonathan Gruber, MIT
November 27, 2009
The Senate Bill issued this week provides premium assistance and market reforms which will make health insurance much more affordable for individuals facing purchase in the non-group market. The premiums that individuals will face in the new exchanges established by this legislation are, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, considerably lower than what they would face in the non-group insurance market, due to the market reforms put in place by the Senate Bill, the mandate on individuals to participate regardless of health, and the market economies of new exchanges. This memo illustrates this point by relying solely on analysis available from CBO, as well as the details of the premium assistance available through premium credits in the Senate plan.
This conclusion is consistent with evidence from the state of Massachusetts. In their December 2007 report, AHIP reported that the average single premium at the end of 2006 for a non-group product in the U.S. was $2613. In their October 2009 report, AHIP found that the average single premium in mid-2009 was $2985, or a 14% increase. That same report presents results for the non-group markets in a set of states. One of those states is Massachusetts, which passed a health care reform similar to the one contemplated at the federal level in mid-2006. The major aspects of this reform took place in 2007, notably the introduction of large subsidies for low income populations, a merged non-group and small group insurance market, and a mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance. And the results have been an enormous reduction in the cost of non-group insurance in the state: the average individual premium in the state fell from $8537 at the end of 2006 to $5143 in mid-2009, a 40% reduction while the rest of the nation was seeing a 14% increase.
My source for the concept of how businesses pass along costs to consumers can be found in any elementary level business textbook. Go find one if this is too hard of a concept for you to grasp.
Go read the bill.Where's the source?
What you don't "got" is anything suggesting that anything I've said is inaccurate. Instead you've just chosen nitpick about elementary concepts like whether or not big mean insurance companies will pass taxes along to their customers.So you criticize the lack of detail yet your response to my question is lacking details. Got it.
Really? which part? The part about people not liking insurace companies? The part about people thinking healthcare is too expensive? The part about the government's plan costing a trillion dollars? The part about the government forcing everyone to buy insurance? Or the part about there not being meaningful data detailing exactly how much money we're going to save off of this? Please, be specific in your response.You're making this up.
You don't need do entation to come up with a reason as to why I should believe the government can fix healthcare. So do you have a reason or not?Nothing again. No specifics and your (or someone else's) opinion. I'll wait for the do entation to back up your post. You do have that, don't you?
The Senate Bill Lowers Non-Group Premiums: Updated for New CBO Estimates
Jonathan Gruber, MIT
November 27, 2009
The Senate Bill issued this week provides premium assistance and market reforms which will make health insurance much more affordable for individuals facing purchase in the non-group market. The premiums that individuals will face in the new exchanges established by this legislation are, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, considerably lower than what they would face in the non-group insurance market, due to the market reforms put in place by the Senate Bill, the mandate on individuals to participate regardless of health, and the market economies of new exchanges. This memo illustrates this point by relying solely on analysis available from CBO, as well as the details of the premium assistance available through premium credits in the Senate plan.
Background
In a letter to Senator Reid on November 20, the Congressional Budget Office (the official government scoring agency) reported that they estimated the cost of an individual low-cost plan in the exchange to be $5200 in 2016. This is a plan with an “actuarial value” (roughly, the share of expenses for a given population covered by insurance) of 70%. In their most recent communication with Congress, CBO also projected that, absent reform, the cost of an individual policy in the non-group market would be $5500 for a plan with an actuarial value of 60%. This implies that the same plan that cost $5500 without reform would cost $4460 with reform, or almost 20% less.
The CBO has not reported many of the details of their analysis, such as the age distribution of individuals in the non-group market or in the exchange. So these data do not provide a strictly apples to apples comparison of premiums for the same individual in the exchange and in the no-reform non-group market. And their conclusion may change as legislation moves forward. But the key point is that, as of now, the most authoritative objective voice in this debate suggests that reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums.
This conclusion is consistent with evidence from the state of Massachusetts. In their December 2007 report, AHIP reported that the average single premium at the end of 2006 for a non-group product in the U.S. was $2613. In their October 2009 report, AHIP found that the average single premium in mid-2009 was $2985, or a 14% increase. That same report presents results for the non-group markets in a set of states. One of those states is Massachusetts, which passed a health care reform similar to the one contemplated at the federal level in mid-2006. The major aspects of this reform took place in 2007, notably the introduction of large subsidies for low income populations, a merged non-group and small group insurance market, and a mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance. And the results have been an enormous reduction in the cost of non-group insurance in the state: the average individual premium in the state fell from $8537 at the end of 2006 to $5143 in mid-2009, a 40% reduction while the rest of the nation was seeing a 14% increase.
Your quote only refers non-group coverage. Also, nowhere in that do ent is a dollar figure estimate for ulative savings. The program costs the taxpayers a trillion dollars. I'd like to know how much of that money the taxpayers will get back in the form of lowered premiums.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
