CBO: ObamaCare will cost $1T, still leaves 30 million uninsured
posted at 8:47 am on June 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Congressional Budget Office has tried crunching the numbers on Barack Obama’s plan to reform health care, which Obama says will save money and protect the uninsured. The CBO director on his official blog says, “Wrong!” — on both counts. The reform plan will cost more than a trillion dollars over the next decade, and while it will put 39 million people on insurance plans, it will drive off more than 23 million more from their existing plans. The cost doesn’t include Obama’s public plan option, either:
According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.
These new figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for several reasons. The estimates provided do not address the entire bill—only the major provisions related to health insurance coverage. Some details have not been estimated yet, and the draft legislation has not been fully reviewed. Also, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals—which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage.
A net decrease of 16-17 million would still leave about 30 million uninsured, according to the figures thrown around by ObamaCare advocates. It would simply exchange individuals in the uninsured category, and those most likely to lose their coverage would be those in lower-income jobs, as well as people working in small businesses and startups.
We would spend a trillion dollars to achieve a net result of solving a third of the uninsured problem. We could have exceeded that by simply paying for private insurance. Assuming an annual cost of $5,000 for basic catastrophic and wellness coverage, we could purchase 20 million plans for the ten years, without overhauling the rest of the American health-care system.
But that would be akin to the “public plan,” which the trillion-dollar CBO cost estimate doesn’t cover. The inclusion of such a plan would remove the incentive for employers to offer insurance at all, which would create many millions more uninsured. At the same time, the public plan would undercut private insurers in the individual markets, pushing people who got kicked out of an employer group plan towards the Medicare-like coverage — and accomplishing single payer by default.
What would be the real cost of ObamaCare? Well north of a trillion dollars. We’ll see if the CBO updates the figures with the analysis of the dynamic impact of the public plan in the coming days, or whether the CBO gets suddenly quiet about it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
The real cost of which you speak does not include the total cost. Where is there an accounting of the human cost of this plan? Granny ain’t gonna get that hip fixed.
bloggless on June 16, 2009 at 8:51 AM
stop making so much sense… sheesh! Doncha know we are living in ‘historic’ times now?
gatorboy on June 16, 2009 at 8:52 AM
*sigh* I’m dialing my Senator’s office already…
angelwing34215 on June 16, 2009 at 8:52 AM
All those idiots who voted for hopenchange have no idea how that vote is going to cost them. All those seniors thinking they were going to get their meds for free. Well they may get their meds for free, but that’s probably all they will get. Nothing else. If a pill doesn’t fix it granny, then you are sh*t out of luck.
bloggless on June 16, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Obama… Making health care affordable by making health care more expensive…
doriangrey on June 16, 2009 at 8:53 AM
The Talking Chimp doesn’t care about ensuring anyone or lowering costs; his only aim and purpose is to destroy the American economy which he shall surely accomplish if allowed.
mr1216 on June 16, 2009 at 8:54 AM
A trillion dollars and we would still have around 30 million uninsured?
Is that 30 million people who would actually be uninsured or is it like the “46 million uninsured” who are only uninsured for short periods of time?
Regardless, this is too expensive for very little benefit and it the public option is only going to be more good money after bad.
This is a pointless exercise. Now we just need to convince the Democrats to give it up.
myrenovations on June 16, 2009 at 8:55 AM
lol +1
bluelightbrigade on June 16, 2009 at 8:58 AM
According to the Times, the Democrats arre looking at a VAT tax of 5% to pay for this, they pass that and the GOP will re-take the house in 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/health/policy/16obama.html?hp
rob verdi on June 16, 2009 at 8:58 AM
my bad, the 5% is what economists say is needed, the democrat number could higher or lower.
rob verdi on June 16, 2009 at 8:59 AM
The sooner the CBO — and everyone else — simply acknowledges that ObamaCare has nothing to do with “insuring the uninsured” and everything to do with a president expanding his power, destroying free enterprise, buying votes, and focusing laser-like on his legacy, the better off we’ll all be. There simply is not one moment in Barack Obama’s entire career that suggests he is concerned about anyone but himself. His narcissism is writ large. We call it ObamaCare as a joke; he’ll actually name it something like that, for posterity, you know.
Rational Thought on June 16, 2009 at 9:00 AM
If these estimates are true……….they are quite scary. If they are ‘under’estimated………things could be worse. And if that is the case, in the words of our VP Bozo, “we guessed wrong”, could put us in such a hole.
RUReadingthis on June 16, 2009 at 9:00 AM
My two cents:
I work for a health insurance company. I know, I know, it makes me worse than Hitler.
Now there are reforms that should happen within health care. Not the least of which are stiffer punishments for health care providers who commit fraud (which costs the people easily a few billion dollars a year) and tort reform. Insurance should really be made easier and less of a puzzle for people. Cosmetic procedures should absolutely NEVER be paid for by insurance companies (because they are). Nor should chiropracters or naturopaths (sorry, you who do those). Those drive up the costs of health care.
Obamacare will make the situation worse. Much worse. And I suspect the more doctors and hospitals and the like push back, the less likely this will happen.
mjk on June 16, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Or it could have been the final nail in the US economy’s coffin.
myrenovations on June 16, 2009 at 9:03 AM
This administration gets scarier by the day….
cmsinaz on June 16, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Just another failure from Obama. A tax credit for minimum health insurance would be more effective, but private insurance would not increase government power enough.
Right_of_Attila on June 16, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Ed check Drudge.
ABC is going to broadcast from inside the White House next week, and have a “TownHall” on health care with Obama that night. ABC will have pro-Obamacare push on all its news segments that day.
RNC fired off a letter protesting the lack of equal time.
Wethal on June 16, 2009 at 9:04 AM
BLASPHEMEY!!
Paul the American on June 16, 2009 at 9:04 AM
+10
I don’t get Ed’s headline. Neither Obama, nor the Dems, nor the media give a rat’s behind about the so-called uninsured. That was just a crude weapon to beat Bush and the Reps. with.
As you say, the purpose of health care “reform” is the same as the takeover of GM–that is to siphon the billions from one group and give it to another. The product is totally irrelevant. Jeesh!
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Like I’ve been saying for 9 months — Obama’s oft-repeated line that “if you like your health coverage you can keep it” — was an absolute, obvious, transparent lie.
When Lewin Group analyzed Edwards’ plan (which Obama ripped off), they said it was more like 51 million people moved to the public option who already had employer-provided insurance. And when you consider the likelihood that satisfaction with one’s plan probably increases with its cost to the employer, the people who really like their health care plans are probably the most likely to see them dropped in favor of an ostensibly cheaper public option.
DrSteve on June 16, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Liberalism really IS a disease!!!
Wonder if treatment for that disease will be available under ObamaCare?
BPD on June 16, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Let me get this straight: on the same day Tom Coburn is releasing a report that the stimulus bill is rife with fraud, waste and mismanagement, the Dali Bama is trying to convince America that a “government option” health plan would keep private health insurance companies fair and honest? PULEEZE! I’m beginning to sense that the air of inevitability on a major health care overhaul is starting to evaporate…
parteagirl on June 16, 2009 at 9:06 AM
State run media to help Obama cram it down our throats.
From DRUDGE: ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
petefrt on June 16, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Agree. The stimulus passed under the perfect storm of events at the time. But he will ratchet up the rhetoric and campaign heavily for it for all the reasons Rational Thought listed above.
sherry on June 16, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Obama and his thugs are interested in control, not costs. To Barry, this is nothing more than a big game for him, Axelrod, Rahm, and the rest of the gang to play and enjoy.
jdflorida on June 16, 2009 at 9:08 AM
un’stinking’believable…
cmsinaz on June 16, 2009 at 9:08 AM
CBO must be fired… forthwith.
petefrt on June 16, 2009 at 9:08 AM
What percentage of “uninsured Americans” are these 20 million illegals we’ve heard so much about?
LibTired on June 16, 2009 at 9:10 AM
I think we should offer a deal: Get the Post Office under control and out of having to raise prices every 10 minutes, delete the lines especially during holidays (which happen every year so they know about them) and then we’ll talk health care.
Are people insane? When has the government ever provided any service cheaper than a private option? Heck, even private entities can run prisons more efficiently! Hello idiots, this is the US Government that wants to take over health care!
katablog.com on June 16, 2009 at 9:12 AM
I couldn’t imagine the horror of being in this man’s mind for any length of time. Now that would be horrific.
tomas on June 16, 2009 at 9:12 AM
22% according to a recent (no longer up) Rasmussen report.
katablog.com on June 16, 2009 at 9:13 AM
They already floated that VAT tax trial balloon, and it sunk with a thud. Democrats know the public will go ballistic on them if try something like that, so they’ll go for a sneakier, less obvious tax.
AZCoyote on June 16, 2009 at 9:15 AM
This is a common thread running through all these programs (mortgage plan, auto bailout, bank bailout, stimulus plan), where the government overpays for what it gets. The only benefit that I can see is that the way they are doing it creates more public sector jobs and dependency. Otherwise, it makes no financial sense.
As I’ve said before, though, being a long-time resident of Chicago, this is exactly, down to the letter, how I expected Obama’s admin to work.
venividivici on June 16, 2009 at 9:15 AM
ONE TRILLION??? What, is the White House Mafia skimming 99% off the top?
Aitch748 on June 16, 2009 at 9:16 AM
mjk, I’m of two minds on this because I’ve seen hearing aids called cosmetic, but at the same time one of my kids has had repeated laser treatments to keep a hemangioma out of his eyespace (to preserve lid function). I wouldn’t consider either of those cosmetic, but a person reviewing the claim might.
DrSteve on June 16, 2009 at 9:17 AM
It is probably pretty dull in there. Not much going on.
Although trying to remember all the things that Soros wants him to say and that Rahm told him to do can get pretty rough.
That’s why he looks freaked out when speaking off the cuff but totally relaxed when reading the teleprompter.
myrenovations on June 16, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Everytime I see that picture of Obama, I think of Charlie McCarthy. “Hey, whose hand is that pulling my jaw strings?”
Big John on June 16, 2009 at 9:17 AM
So basically the plan, if it leaves 30 million uninsured, does absolutely nothing.
LibTired on June 16, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Which is the real plan here anyway, then the clamor will rise from the masses for a true single payer system. That is the goal and always has been.
conservnut on June 16, 2009 at 9:18 AM
The planned effect will be near-total control of every aspect of our lives. Every personal decision we make will be judged against the dollar cost for public healthcare and allowed or prohibited by some faceless bureaucrat. And here we thought we could surrender just a little bit of freedom and the nanny-state would stop when we said “enough”. Right.
SKYFOX on June 16, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Rev. Wrong? Nanny Pelo-chio? Bill Ayers? The devil?
jgapinoy on June 16, 2009 at 9:19 AM
The loss of quality health care will be the price. The rationing of care will be the price. The unnecessary deaths of our sick and elderly will be the real cost of Obamacare.
Of course there is also the economic damage that will be staggering in its scope.
hillbillyjim on June 16, 2009 at 9:19 AM
You mean “hey whose hand is up my butt” TOTUS says shut up and dance marionette boy!
conservnut on June 16, 2009 at 9:20 AM
Unbelievable.
The stuff Prince Obarfy and his Minstrels of Despair all want to do to the American people is so scary.
But we can stop them.
blatantblue on June 16, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Not to mention having Big Brother in your business 24/7, telling you what not to eat, drink, smoke, etc., when and how to exercise, and the list goes on…
hillbillyjim on June 16, 2009 at 9:21 AM
On a certain philosophical level, the winner deserves to win. If Obama gets away with destroying America, gotta give him his props. I don’t think evil yields to good without an all-out maximum effort. We’re just being slow, so far.
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Whether health care is completely privatized or completely socialized or some mixture thereof, the only way to reduce costs is to use less of it. Even in a sensible, fully-private solution, granny would not get that hip fixed, unless she or her heirs were willing to pay for it out of pocket.
hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM
I think that will cost a lot. Once we stop being paralyzed about losing our comfortable lives, we’ll probably get going.
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM
What I wish government officials, and Americans in general, would understand is that health insurance is not the same as universal health care. Universal health care is impossible, whether private or government-controlled. Here’s why: 1) For any headache or cough, a person will automatically run to the doctor. Why not? Someone else is flipping the bill. 2) The doctor will recommend two options: the 5-cent pill, which works about 20% of the time, and the $50-pill, which works 95% of the time for 12 hours longer. Because someone else is flipping the bill, why not just go for the $50-pill?
Realizing that neither Congress, the Executive Branch, nor the courts have any real respect for the Constitution, the document that lays out the enumerated powers, which does not include any provisions for providing health care to American citizens, I won’t go down that road any further.
What American citizens need to do is either pay for true insurance with premiums and deductibles or put money aside in a medical savings accounts. I know though: that would require Americans actually take responsibility of their own lives, something that’s been bread out of us through years of Marxist subversion in public schools, media, and American churches.
The same goes for Social Security: let me keep my own money each month to invest, giving me some hope of a return. But I know that won’t happen, since there are too many who won’t save, won’t invest in their future, then cry for the government (e.g. responsible taxpayers) to provide their retirement. Pitiful. The Founders had a dream for this country, and this is not it.
Send_Me on June 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM
The part that scares me the most is the loss of control over my health care. I can’t tell you how many times I have gone to a doctor (who turned out to be a going through the motions idiot who would not listen to me) and so I changed doctors. Or how many times I have disagreed with a diagnosis or treatment and was proven right. Now I have the right to say “no way doc, I ain’t gonna do that”. We would lose that right or the right to move away from a lousy doctor. And lousy doctors would be more abundant. Just like government employees, excellence would not be rewarded but discouraged.
A lose lose situation for everyone.
conservnut on June 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Exit question: How many more jobs will the
MessiahMistake have to save or create to employ all of the “bean counters” he disparaged in his speech who will be thrown out of work under his brilliant proposal?hillbillyjim on June 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM
hear hear. but that’s why it’s necessary for advocates of socialized med. to present it as a human right. Fundamentally, they don’t believe in different outcomes for different people.
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM
hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Ah yes, but Granny and her heirs get to decide, not the US Government. And do you really thing people are going to use “free” health care less? The only thing there will be less of is doctors who are unwilling to work for what the US Government decides to pay them.
katablog.com on June 16, 2009 at 9:30 AM
What about mast reconstruction for breast cancer survivors? That’s cosmetic. Or treatments for those whom accidents or diseases have left disfigured? You need to hate less and think more (although this is a website dominated by Republicans, so I won’t hold my breath).
hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 9:30 AM
And, how close was the cost estimate of Medicair, SCHIP, prescription drug programs……ect.
Johan Klaus on June 16, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Impressive.
hillbillyjim on June 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM
How about we go free market on this?
Insurance companies can provide plans that include cosmetic srugery of their own definitions as well as plans that don’t include it. But the states cannot force insurance companies to include cosmetic surgery on every single plan.
myrenovations on June 16, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Sounds like you’ve got a hate problem yourself.
DrSteve on June 16, 2009 at 9:35 AM
You made a good point until you started lecturing on hate
blatantblue on June 16, 2009 at 9:35 AM
I am sure that you know what mjk was talking about. Hint(unnecessary surgery) (Sort of like partial birth abortion.)
Johan Klaus on June 16, 2009 at 9:37 AM
whoa buddy. he/she was clearly referring to Pelosi-type forehead injections. You’re picking a fight because ur losing the argument.
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 9:37 AM
My brother with a PhD from MIT actually said, “I’ll gladly pay more to help people get insurance.”
I’m not sure which is more frightening — that people like my brother actually think this march to Socialism is a good thing or that people voted for this Socialist because they were caught up in the historicity of the moment and checked their brains at the door. Maybe when interest rates hit double digits and we have Jimmy Carter (same verse, same as the first, a lot louder and a certainly worse) all over again, America will wake up.
I have 2 songs from running through my head:
From Phantom of the Opera:
Past the point of no return, the final threshold,the bridge is crossed, so stand and watch it burn…”
and Maybe this should be the Tea Party theme
Les Mis:
Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!
Beaglemom on June 16, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Actually the senior drug plan worked out to be less because there was actual competition between private insurance companies. But your point is well taken since this won’t be private insurance companies for long.
katablog.com on June 16, 2009 at 9:37 AM
I met a lady from Britain in Cayman Islands last week who partially tore her achilles tendon. She has been waiting over a year for the surgery. Stories like that really frighten me because I had the same issue a number of years back but had it repaired almost immediately.
I can’t imagine what my quality of life would have been like without that surgery if I had to wait over a year in chronic pain.
pullingmyhairout on June 16, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Is that 39 million “saved or created”?
munseym on June 16, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Yes, but the point is, it will put 39 million of the right kind of people on a plan, and drive off more than 23 million of the wrong kind of people from their existing plans.
Vashta.Nerada on June 16, 2009 at 9:45 AM
1. If you want something, save your nickels and pay for it.
2. If you want to preserve something against catastrophic loss, then purchase insurance.
3. If it costs too much, then get a job or wait for price to drop
4. When demand drops, companies make less money. When companies make less money due to an inability to sell a product, they have to either (a) make the product more worthwhile, or (b) drop the price.
5. Government meddling (i.e. subsidies, tariffs, regulations, etc.) creates artificialities in the supply/demand dynamics, which is why the Founders purposefully tried to keep the government out of private business as much as possible by laying out the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. People would be wise to read it sometime.
Send_Me on June 16, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Ain’t nothing stopping him.
Suggest that he go down to the local gas station, car wash, convienence store, homeless shelter, and volunteer to start paying for the health insurance of people employed there. Tell him to ask around and find some guy w/out insurance and then to write the guy a monthly check for health insurance.
You see, your brother probably isn’t interested in doing that. He’s interested in forcing others to do that. He wants you to pay for his desire for philanthropy. Point out his hypocrisy and then tell him to put up or shut up.
PackerBronco on June 16, 2009 at 9:49 AM
A national federal tax revolt is what’s needed. The tea parties are over.
Shy Guy on June 16, 2009 at 9:52 AM
But that’s the precise same argument that Conservatives are making to oppose government health care. They say (accurately) that under a government-run system, like in Canada or Britain, health care would be rationed to cut costs. They raise the spectre of the elderly being denied treatment because it is not cost-effective.
But this is exactly what needs to happen if costs are to be controlled. The difference is, under a private system, it would be up to the patient and the family members to decide if they are willing to pay out of pocket for it, whereas under a socialized system this choice would be made for you. “Rationing,” with rationing used in a broader sense to mean “the downward adjustment of consumption of a scarce good”, is a feature of any sane market, and eventually we will have to come up with some way to make the market for health care sane in this sense.
hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM
I don’t care what Ivy League college he was herded through his behavior is just not that bright. The man is going to destroy us to pay off his parasitic supporters.
rplat on June 16, 2009 at 9:54 AM
The government needs to forget about trying to distribute a federal plan through an insurance system.
They need to set up ‘free clinics’ that are like the Urgent Care facilities. Instead of being ‘free’, they charge a small fee for services and these facilities would be subsidized by the government.
Basically this can be done through the military if you provide funding through military measures such as the VA. Expand the VA and provide training to military doctors. . . give them real world experiments in these ‘fee clinics’ subsidized by government (of course these clinics wouldn’t be subject to malpractice lawsuits because they ARE the government).
This solves the access problem, it keeps the government out of the insurance business, and it provides low cost care subsidized by the government for anyone who doesn’t want to pay for an insurance plan.
As for the acute illnesses, the government should have a default 20,000 deductible plan for people in this country who make less than a certain figure (100k or so). This way if they need specialized stuff, they can just be down 20k instead of 100s of thousands.
There are simple solutions. But the government plan will cost well over 1T over 10 years and it will likely approach 1T/year. The people in DC have no idea what works, what doesn’t work, and what needs to be fixed. They only know that they want to get elected and that’s the only thing they care about.
ThackerAgency on June 16, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Even in a sensible, fully-private solution, granny would not get that hip fixed, unless she or her heirs were willing to pay for it out of pocket.
hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM
hear hear. but that’s why it’s necessary for advocates of socialized med. to present it as a human right. Fundamentally, they don’t believe in different outcomes for different people.
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM
bloggless on June 16, 2009 at 9:57 AM
I knew what mjk thought mjk was talking about. But what mjk was actually talking about was stopping insurers from covering any cosmetic surgery.
Sorry. I finally got around to reading god is not Great. I’m not feeling exceptionally charitable this morning.
hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Obama,a running this country is like letting a 6 year old drive an eighteen wheeler with a cargo of TNT down a mountain side.
The man is unqualified to do anything more than community organizer voter fraud.
Jeff from WI on June 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM
How can BO tell us to cut down on healthcare, when his administration is providings lots of free abortions to the world?
bloggless on June 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM
So your solution is a single-payer health care system with a deductible? Brilliant!
hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 10:02 AM
That’s easy. Abortions cost less than carrying a pregnancy to term.
hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 10:03 AM
And Obama could make a good faith gesture by demanding that the UAW of the bankrupt companies take a bit of a cut in their EXPENSIVE BENEFITS to help the company be competitive. He could ask that the retirees go on Medicare instead of the private program. He could also put his money where his mouth is by cutting benefits to the Federal plan that he is on.
It seems like he’s more than willing to ask everyone else to sacrifice, but I haven’t seen him sacrifice anything himself yet. Cut your own benefits to cut federal costs Barry. You can afford a higher copay and a higher deductible.
ThackerAgency on June 16, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Look jack, I don’t know what you know about health insurance. But it’s been my life. If a private insurance company offered a 20,000 deductible, it would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $10/month.
You think that a 20,000 dollar deductible is ’single payer’ you are misunderstanding the system.
What are your qualifications again to pass judgement on my ideas? Oh yeah. . . you’re one of those famous anonymous bloggers.
ThackerAgency on June 16, 2009 at 10:07 AM
And those of us who get great coverage now through our employers will end up with crap. Glenn Beck relayed a vivid personal anecdote:
He owns a small business and his accountant told him he is the only person in New York State who provides such generous health insurance benefits to his employees.
Yet, if this legislation passes his employees will be taxed and he will be taxed on these benefits – which will force him to drop this coverage.
As Rush likes to say, equality to Libs is making us all equally miserable.
Buy Danish on June 16, 2009 at 10:08 AM
The health care market in this country was quite sane until the government started meddling in it with Medicare and Medicaid, and then with mandates for emergency care. My father was a doctor from 1945 until 1985, and now he is on Medicare. Our family has seen the flaws in government health care as practitioners and consumers.
The biggest reason private health insurance is so expensive is that privately insured people are subsidizing the costs that the government is not paying for Medicare and Medicaid patients. The answer to this is not more government intervention, but less. The second biggest reason is unnecessary costs added to the system by lawsuits and the fear of lawsuits. The answer for this is serious tort reform and protections for doctors and hospitals from frivolous lawsuits. But Obama himself yesterday told the AMA this is not going to be part of his plan.
rockmom on June 16, 2009 at 10:11 AM
In other words the uninsured Americans will increase by 10 million while we spend 1 trillion? Or are they still including the 20 million illegal aliens? I wonder if anyone has actually done the math? Over 90% of AMERICANS have health insurance.
Capitalist Infidel on June 16, 2009 at 10:11 AM
They do need to limit services to illegal aliens – in fact deny them service altogether if taxpayers are paying the tab. Tort reform would also be a cost cutter without affecting the quality of care that would be simple to do.
There are simple solutions that don’t disrupt the system that is so good to so many Americans.
ThackerAgency on June 16, 2009 at 10:14 AM
In my last job I had a $5000 deductible plan with a Health Savings Account. The premium was $140 a month. Most people pay this much or more for car insurance, which they have to have to drive in every state. I made a high salary and chose to pay eveything out of my own pocket, including diagnostics and eventual surgery for a knee injury. When I left the job I got $4500 from the HSA. It was a great deal.
rockmom on June 16, 2009 at 10:16 AM
5000 dollars is much easier to use up in medical care than 20,000 dollars.
Lets do a survey of everyone on here that uses more than 20,000 dollars of medical care every year. I’d bet it’s less than 1% and of that 1% it would be mainly people on Medicare already.
$5000, is a week stay in a hospital and very likely. Maybe 20,000 is too low. But the problem with health care is that people expect their health insurance to cover the bandaides at Walmart. Health insurance was supposed to cover for major catastrophic things.
An HSA is a great deal. But most people want copays – I know I’ve tried to sell HSA’s. . . people don’t want them – especially if they have kids (no matter how much sense it makes on paper).
Imagine auto insurance having to pay for oil changes and tire rotations, brake services etc. That’s what they expect the health insurance to pay for in medical care. That’s why it’s too expensive. You don’t have to look any farther than the UAW or Federal benefit plans to see the outrageous benefits they get.
The higher the deductible, the lower the premium (exponentially). Give them a terrible federal option (50,000 deductible). But the plans they are proposing are not going to help at all.
ThackerAgency on June 16, 2009 at 10:21 AM
I agree,but want those with the dough to pay for and get more and better health care, just like I want those with the dough to have better housing, food, clothing, cars, etc. I like the meritocracy, even though I’m not at the top of it. It presents opportunities to people that no other country offers. If people want equal outcomes in housing,health care, etc, there are plenty of nice socialist type places to live, some even inside the US.
I believe in a social safety net, just one that leaves the recipient uncomfortable and denied. If Granny wants a hip transplant, and the entire baby boomer gen.wants one at the same time, let them pay for it out of pocket.
But let me be clear, I’m for private health insurance, and am especially into Thacker’s notion of some type of low cost catastrophic insurance for all,while people pay out of pocket for the rest. I pay nearly $16000/year for a family policy we rarely if ever use. That cost subsidizes the uninsured, medicare and medicaid users, etc. And it was the only choice available to me in my area. Other, slightly cheaper plans existed, but no doctors in my county were participating. I know I’m going to be paying even more now, and getting less. The state requirements regarding what insurance policies must contain are killing me financially. And the inability to purchase health insurance in another state limits my choices to exactly ONE.
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Wow, a TRILLION here, and TRILLION there, pretty soon we’re gonna be talking “real” money. Has anyone told Timmy to crank the presses harder? We’re gonna need that extra cash.
GarandFan on June 16, 2009 at 10:23 AM
You’re right, but “fixing” health care to the dems is about redistributing income. So nobody cares whether your ideas make sense or not, since you are trying to fix health care.
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 10:24 AM
sorry. I wasn’t completely detailed about this = breast cancer survivors should have their implants paid because this is related to a disease process. And hemangiomas are the same. Disease processes are not cosmetic.
But too often my insurance company pays for things that are clearly cosmetic because they don’t want to deal with lawyers and getting sued or sent to the Department of Insurance. It’s pretty ridiculous, actually. Like people who have surgery then have a scar they “don’t like” so they get a lawyer to freak out the insurance company and bam! it’s paid for. I’m increasingly amazed what people think should be paid for then they get all P.O’d when the premiums increase. How do they think their idiotic procedures get paid?
mjk on June 16, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Bet that wasn’t in NY. It varies wildly from state to state. Some states have so few insurers offering HSA’s that the premiums are only slightly lower than traditional insurance and thus makes no sense.
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 10:25 AM
But, like the unemployment numbers, it would’ve been worse if duh One hadn’t come along!
SouthernGent on June 16, 2009 at 10:28 AM
but do nothing to buy democrat votes.
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 10:28 AM
NY is the WORST state for health insurance. You are better off being a foreign citizen living in NY than an American in NY for health care. I don’t know why, but it is pretty crazy there. I don’t even offer plans in NY but I offer them in basically every other state. I just wrote a plan in Alaska last night.
ThackerAgency on June 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM
I’m no economist, but couldn’t the government just give the uninsured a tax credit of each year to buy health insurance in the private sector for SIGNIFICANTLY less than what this Obamascam proposal will cost? Am I missing something?
uncalheels on June 16, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »