CBO: Senate bill would increase individual insurance premiums...

[posty]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/69763-c...urance-premiums

 

Senate Democrats and Republicans seized on the report, issued Monday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), to bolster their arguments on the same day the floor debate formally commenced.

 

To Democrats, the report affirms the bill offers affordable access to healthcare to tens of millions of people without insurance while offering modest relief to the nearly 160 million people who receive insurance through their jobs.

 

“Most Americans will see lower premiums as a direct result of reform,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement. “Today’s analysis confirms that millions of Americans who lack the necessary coverage to avoid potential financial ruin would have access to more coverage at an affordable price because of our proposal.”

 

Republicans contend that the findings prove the Senate legislation would result in higher premiums for millions of people compared to what it would cost them in today’s market.

 

“The bottom line is this: After 2,074 pages and trillions more in government spending, massive new taxes and a half-trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare for seniors, most people, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will end up paying more or seeing no significant savings,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. The health insurance industry’s lobbying arms also proclaimed that the report confirmed their similar warnings.

 

The nonpartisan experts at the CBO and the JCT do not conclude that either side of the political debate is as correct as they say.

The report paints a complex picture on the bill’s impact to the vast health insurance marketplace by 2016.

 

It finds the Senate legislation would reduce premiums by up to 3 percent for 134 million people who get insurance as a job benefit at a large company. This population is by far the largest component of the health insurance market: When the reforms kick in, 70 percent of people with coverage would get it from their jobs, a slight increase from the current rate.

 

The average premium for people who work at large companies would remain about the same: $7,300 annually for an individual plan and $20,100 for a family policy.

 

For small businesses that cover their workers in the so-called small group market, the average change in insurance premiums would range from a 2 percent decrease to a 1 percent increase. Under the bill, 13 percent of insured people would fall into this category. Factoring in new subsidies available to people with incomes below 400 percent of poverty, individuals in this market would pay 8 percent to 11 percent less than they do now.

 

According to the CBO and the JCT, that translates into $7,800 annually for an individual policy through a small employer — about the same as they pay now — and a decrease of $100 for a family plan, to $19,200.

 

The impact of the Senate bill on the individual market, which comprises a diverse array of people from the self-employed to those not offered coverage by their employers, is more complex to measure.

 

The direst finding for Democrats — and the figure most highlighted by Republicans — is health insurance premiums would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher for the 13.3 million people required to buy insurance under the bill, compared to what they would pay absent the legislation.

 

Premiums would actually increase by the same factor for all 31 million people who would buy insurance on the bill’s new exchanges, but 17.7 million of those people — or 57 percent — would be eligible for federal subsidies. Those would be offered on a sliding scale for individuals and families earning up to 400 percent of poverty. The bill does allow people to retain the policies they already have without change, however.

 

“Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law,” the report says.

 

For those individuals receiving subsidies, however, insurance would actually cost them 56 percent to 59 percent less than coverage on the individual market under the current system. The subsidy would cover about two-thirds of their premiums on average.

 

One of the chief reasons insurance premiums would be higher for some people is that reform would require insurance companies to offer everyone in the individual and small-group market more generous and more stable coverage and increase competition among insurers, the report notes. “Let’s be clear: Where the CBO does see premiums rising, it’s not because Americans are paying more for the same coverage — it’s that they’re making a choice to purchase better plans that weren’t previously available to them,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer wrote on his official blog. According to a memo from the Senate Finance Committee, buying an equivalent policy today would cost 14 percent to 20 percent more than under reform.

 

This argument did not hold much water with Republicans.

 

“The Democrats’ bills will still require nearly 14 million Americans to purchase unsubsidized insurance that is more expensive than they could get under current law,” says a memo issued to GOP health aides by the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

 

Viewed alone, the improved coverage would increase premiums by 27 percent to 30 percent for individuals and up to 3 percent for those enrolled in small-business insurance plans. That increase, Democratic aides stressed, is significantly mitigated by the fact that more people — and more healthy people, especially — will be in the insurance pool, spreading the insurance companies’ financial risk across a broader population. Administrative savings would also offset the additional cost.

 

A Senate Republican aide contended the increase to the individual-market premiums is the number that matters. Teasing out the other effects, the aide said, is “a little bit of Bernie Madoff accounting.”

 

Democrats have stressed throughout the debate that health insurance premiums already are escalating rapidly under the current system, which leaves tens of millions of people without coverage and many more with inadequate coverage.

 

“In recent years, Americans have seen their health insurance premiums creep higher and higher at an alarming rate. Health reform set out to slow those rapid increases, and today the nonpartisan congressional budget scorekeepers told us we’ve succeeded,” Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), one of the chief architects of the bill, said in a statement.

[wiegie]

I see that posty learned how to write headlines from Matt Drudge

[Perchoutofwater]

Nice substantive post there wiegie.

 

It looks like a mixed bag, that will help some (and big business oh the irony), and hurt others with regard to what they or their companies have to pay. It really puts the squeeze on the self employed, and the smaller businesses that don't currently offer health coverage. It also costs nearly a Trillion dollars over 10 years for 5 years of coverage. So it boils down to not much difference in cost for most premium wise, a few people that currently want coverage but can't get it will have access, but every one will have less access than they do now if they are insured (new mamogram screening guidelines). It is basically just a big control grab that will cost the tax payers a ton, but since they don't know how much of their taxes go to it most will not realize they are paying much more than before for a lower standard of service.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[i_am_the_swammi]

It is basically just a big control grab that will cost the tax payers a ton, but since they don't know how much of their taxes go to it most will not realize they are paying much more than before for a lower standard of service.

 

How do you know this to be fact? Please post a factual link (not blather) that states we will be getting a lower standard of service.

 

TIA.

[posty]

I see that posty learned how to write headlines from Matt Drudge

 

It is the title of the article...

[wiegie]

It is the title of the article...

mea culpa

[Perchoutofwater]

How do you know this to be fact? Please post a factual link (not blather) that states we will be getting a lower standard of service.

 

TIA.

 

Prior to this year what was the recommended age for a woman to get a mamogram? What is it now. Ask a doctor that has been practicing medicine for 20 years what they made 10 years ago and what they make now, and why they make a much lower wage now than they did ten years ago.

 

TIA

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

$20K for a family policy is ridiculous.

Edited December 1, 2009 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[Ursa Majoris]

Ask a doctor that has been practicing medicine for 20 years what they made 10 years ago and what they make now, and why they make a much lower wage now than they did ten years ago.

I'm interested to know the answer to this. Given the rise in health care costs over the last ten years and given your contention that it isn't doctors that are getting the extra money, where is it going?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I'm interested to know the answer to this. Given the rise in health care costs over the last ten years and given your contention that it isn't doctors that are getting the extra money, where is it going?

 

Malpractice insurance of course. Oh, and ACORN.

[Ursa Majoris]

Malpractice insurance of course. Oh, and ACORN.

Since it's ten years worth of increasing profits and decreasing doctor salaries, the answer surely has to be "into the pockets of insurance companies", doesn't it?

[bpwallace49]

Since it's ten years worth of increasing profits and decreasing doctor salaries, the answer surely has to be "into the pockets of insurance companies", doesn't it?

 

exactly!

 

I am so disappointed with all politicans on this issue. With medical costs spiraling out of control, the continued decline of "real" health care provided in the US versus simply providing the tests that make the most money, and how poorly the US compares to other countries health care, this was a prime opportunity to correct a growing imbalance in our society.

 

Instead the right wing does jack to actually help REFORM health care, cause they cant offend their weathly donors. No realistic alternative, and no willingness to actually do what is morally right for their constituents.,

 

Then the left proceeds to try and get a consensus of who is left after the right decides the health care is just fine and dandy as it is, and then completely destroys the opportunity by having to pander to individual congresspeople to beg for votes. Add in whackjobs like Pelosi who do not represent a mainstream of Americans and you get a bill that may cause more problems then it solves.End result . . . . no real progress or reform.

 

How is it so freakin difficult for congresspeople to just put what is best for the PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT first? Why on earth is it so difficult for the right and left to actually work towards the betterment of the US versus their own fiefdoms and campaign contributions?

 

I am so sick of politics and the status quo that does nothing but keep the serfs working for the lords . . . business as usual in America . . .

 

:rant over:

[Ursa Majoris]

How is it so freakin difficult for congresspeople to just put what is best for the PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT first? Why on earth is it so difficult for the right and left to actually work towards the betterment of the US versus their own fiefdoms and campaign contributions?

It's simple. It's because we do not get them re-elected - their donors do. We put the X in the box, fill in the circle or whatever but the colossal cost of mounting an election campaign is borne by lobbies that provide the Benjamins. Thus everything they do post-election is geared to the people they are beholden to, not the mass of people that went to the polls.

 

Until that problem is resolved, nothing is going to emerge from Congress that benefits the population of the United States as opposed to benefiting small subsets of that population. It really is that simple.

[westvirginia]

Since it's ten years worth of increasing profits and decreasing doctor salaries, the answer surely has to be "into the pockets of insurance companies", doesn't it?

 

Profit margin was 2.2% this year, wasn't it?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Profit margin was 2.2% this year, wasn't it?

 

You can play lots of games with your profit margin. It doesn't mean they manage their own expenses wisely.

[evil_gop_liars]

You can play lots of games with your profit margin. It doesn't mean they manage their own expenses wisely.

 

You mean a Falcon 7x isn't essential in providing superior service.

[Yukon Cornelius]

well day they will go up because people will actually perches real insurance not catastrophic.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Prior to this year what was the recommended age for a woman to get a mamogram? What is it now. Ask a doctor that has been practicing medicine for 20 years what they made 10 years ago and what they make now, and why they make a much lower wage now than they did ten years ago.

 

TIA

 

So you saying that doctors will purposely provide a lower standard of service because they aren't making what they did 10 years ago?

 

I asked you to state how you knew for sure the standard of care would decline, and asked you to provide a link. You haven't addressed either question.

 

Likely because you are again spewing blather.

[Perchoutofwater]

Since it's ten years worth of increasing profits and decreasing doctor salaries, the answer surely has to be "into the pockets of insurance companies", doesn't it?

 

According to the anesthesiologist I hunt with medicare / medicaid has cut what he gets paid per patient by somewhere between 65 and 70% in the last decade. Naturally they try to make it up by charging the insurance companies more. This is what the health care bill is modeling health care after. That seems like a pretty big disincentive to becoming a doctor. I wonder if this will affect overall patient care in the future.

 

BTW, what was larger the profit margin insurance companies made or the percentage of medicare/medicaid that is wasted on fraud?

[dmarc117]

According to the anesthesiologist I hunt with medicare / medicaid has cut what he gets paid per patient by somewhere between 65 and 70% in the last decade. Naturally they try to make it up by charging the insurance companies more. This is what the health care bill is modeling health care after. That seems like a pretty big disincentive to becoming a doctor. I wonder if this will affect overall patient care in the future.

 

BTW, what was larger the profit margin insurance companies made or the percentage of medicare/medicaid that is wasted on fraud?

 

 

one good thing might happen....people will become doctors to help people, not to get rich.

Edited December 1, 2009 by dmarc117

[Ursa Majoris]

According to the anesthesiologist I hunt with medicare / medicaid has cut what he gets paid per patient by somewhere between 65 and 70% in the last decade. Naturally they try to make it up by charging the insurance companies more. This is what the health care bill is modeling health care after. That seems like a pretty big disincentive to becoming a doctor. I wonder if this will affect overall patient care in the future.

 

BTW, what was larger the profit margin insurance companies made or the percentage of medicare/medicaid that is wasted on fraud?

So it's not insurance companies then because they all have their ass hanging out of their pants what with being reduced to impecunity and 2.2% margins and all, nor the government since they've cut Medicaid / Care payments. It's not the hospitals because they're all closing or shrieking for more state aid and we know it's not the doctors because they've taken to shooting their own food, being unable to afford groceries any more.

 

And yet premiums go up 10% or more annually. Again, who's getting the cash?

Edited December 1, 2009 by Ursa Majoris

[Perchoutofwater]

So you saying that doctors will purposely provide a lower standard of service because they aren't making what they did 10 years ago?

 

I asked you to state how you knew for sure the standard of care would decline, and asked you to provide a link. You haven't addressed either question.

 

Likely because you are again spewing blather.

 

No, I'm saying that doctors are now making significantly less, and stand to see another cut if health care reform is passed based on medicare. This coupled in no reduction in risk (tort reform) and additional taxes on higher wage earners is going to discourage the best and the brightest from entering the field of medicine, and may cause some to say to hell with it and retire early. This will result in a lower standard of care.

 

For the last 20 years the American Cancer Society has recommended annual mammograms to every woman over 40 (some younger with family history). Now the Department of Health and Human Services has set guidelines that a woman only start getting mammograms at the age of 50 and then only every other year and once they turn 75 no need to get them as they need to die anyway. This one hits especially close to home for me as we lost my wife's mother to breast cancer 4 months before our first child was born, and in the past year have lost two friends one in her late 30's and one in her 40's to breast cancer.

 

Is this too conservative of a link for you. You might want to check out what the American Cancer Society is saying about it at the end of the article.

 

This is a preemptive move to change the stand of service be for health care is federalized so it doesn't look like they are providing a lower standard of service.

[Perchoutofwater]

So it's not insurance companies then because they all have their ass hanging out of their pants what with being reduced to impecunity and 2.2% margins and all, nor the government since they've cut Medicaid / Care payments. It's not the hospitals because they're all closing or shrieking for more state aid and we know it's not the doctors because they've taken to shooting their own food, being unable to afford groceries any more.

 

And yet premiums go up 10% or more annually. Again, who's getting the cash?

 

A lot of it goes to documentation both that required by the government and that required by the medical malpractice insurance carriers. A lot of it goes to technology. We still lead the world in new medical technologies and have greater access to diagnostic equipment. Sure a lot of it is wasteful, but a lot of it is a step in the process to satisfy the government or again medical malpractice carriers. Some of it goes to outrageous facilities being built primarily to attract elective cases in better times. A lot of it goes to meet stupid regulations that we have discussed before. It is not any one thing, and trying to say that there is asinine

[bpwallace49]

No, I'm saying that doctors are now making significantly less Then where is money going Perch? If the doctors make less, yet costs increase, who is making money? , and stand to see another cut if health care reform is passed based on medicare. This coupled in no reduction in risk (tort reform) Perch you REALLY need to get another platform. This is such a miniscule amount (as been proven several times in several threads about ths). Just because you keep saying it, doesnt make it true.

 

I am going to take a wild guess that the insurance companies are the ones making out like bandits here?

[Perchoutofwater]

I am going to take a wild guess that the insurance companies are the ones making out like bandits here?

 

The cost of tort is on medical care is higher than the 2.2% profits the insurance companies make. Some estimate it to be as high as 10%. Regardless it is higher than what you want to pin it on. Look at post #23 for additional reasons health care cost is so high. I'm sure I left out a few. The idea that it is all the insurance companies like you and Ursa want to pretend is just ludicrous.