Premiums headed up, with or without health reform
Robin Beaton's insurance company cancelled her breast cancer surgery because she didn't disclose she'd been treated for acne.
Health insurance companies launched an 11th-hour assault Monday on a compromise health care reform bill in the Senate. In a new report and a Washington advertising blitz, they warned that reform would increase insurance premiums “above the levels projected under current law.”
The attacks came just one day before a scheduled vote on the bill, sponsored by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. Mr. Baucus’ bill is widely expected to win approval in the Senate Finance Committee later today.
A more interesting question, at least for conspiracy theorists, is whether the insurance industry is trying to kill the bill or trying to solidify support for it from liberal senators who criticized its lack of a so-called public option health plan. Better the Baucus bill, the insurers might reason, than something that would hurt them even more.
Whatever the motivation, Monday’s attacks probably signal an end to an uneasy alliance between the insurance industry and the Obama administration.
In May, when the administration was building support for reform, Mr. Obama held a press conference with industry leaders to unveil an agreement that would lower health spending by 1.5 percent a year.
Within three days, hospital and health insurance leaders had begun to back off from those pledges. News reports at the time said that insurance companies were preparing attack ads aimed at undercutting health care reform.
The insurance industry has substantial cash reserves and has shown a willingness to use that money to influence the debate. The attacks rolled out Monday may be a preview of what lies in store this fall as health care reform draws to a climax.
The industry argument is simple: Reform will raise premiums above what they would otherwise be. That’s because individual mandates contained in the bill aren’t strong enough to force everyone to buy coverage, the insurance industry claims.
But that analysis ignores provisions in the Baucus bill that would help hold down premium costs. It doesn’t consider the effect of limiting insurance company overhead that can eat up as much as 45 percent of the cost of some health policies. Under the Baucus bill, overhead could be no higher than 15 percent.
And it doesn’t calculate the effect of tax subsidies for some people who buy health insurance on their own, which would lower costs.
In fact, the industry’s own report lays out an excellent — though unintentional — case for reform. It estimates that without reform insurance premiums will grow by at least 80 percent over the next 10 years.
High as that figure is, it’s probably low. In the past 10 years, premiums have grown by 131 percent. The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that premiums will grow another 130 percent by 2019 unless steps are taken to drastically curtail spending.
At that rate, a lot of people who get coverage now through their jobs won’t in 10 years. Many, especially those who are close to retirement age or who have had previous health problems, won’t be able to get health insurance at any price.
The Baucus bill is not perfect — or even as good as it could be. It should contain a public option. A single-payer plan would be even better.
But without serious reforms that broaden coverage and control costs, the entire health care system is in danger. Depending on what’s included in the final bill, reform could add to health care costs. The only thing more expensive would be doing nothing.
Just give citizens a “public option” and allow these profit driven greed mongers to stay as they are having meaningful competition. Let them compete or sink. Allow people to choose if they want them who bring very little to the table as far as healthcare, in fact, they bring nothing at all. What service do they provide us and why should citizens or our government desire to keep them profitable when they don’t bring any benefits to the table for our citizens?
They only benefit themselves and very few top shareholders, why should we citizens be forced to keep their stocks healthy when these stocks will not benefit each and every citizen who is forced to purchase their meaningless service.
A great many of us citizens would prefer to pay premiums into a public option where it is not driven by profits.
Now the insurance companies want a sort of Universal Health plan, being that the government pass a law requiring every citizens to participant where 100% of our citizens are insured. The catch here is that the insurance industry want the government now to subsidizing premiums paying this government freebie into their profit margins, more CORPORATE WELFARE freebies from tax payers to the insurance industry. These greedy monsters are crazy and so are the people cheering for the insurance industry and against a “public option”.
It reminds me of the old maxim: “good, fast and cheap, pick two”. You can’t have all three. One of the assumptions made by Baucus is that employers will shop for lower prices, creating competition, driving prices for insurance down. Like companies are not already desperately trying to shop for the best prices. Baucus further assumes, that as companies save money through this competition for lower prices, they will pass along the savings to employees in the form of higher wages. So, goes the theory, yes, it might cost you more for healthcare, but you’ll be getting a raise to offset. Does anyone believe employers are going to raise salaries with these savings?
The move to tax cadillac policies, as pointed out in today’s NYT may hit certain groups, the sick and the elderly even though they are driving a Toyota. The cost of the policy does not always equate to gold plated benefits, it will most always equate to age or other factors, so an older worker might be taxed for receiving the same benefits as a younger worker who will not be taxed. The cost of covering everyone is X. All that is going on now is every group arguing that they should not have to pay for it. Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax the guy behind the tree.
in the mid-1980’s, the Supreme Court ruled doctors could advertise. Unfortunately, lawyers joined the parade. If you look back, it seems there is a causal relationship between when ad agencies started inventing new diseases (ED, Restless Leg Syndrome, etc) and when lawyers started running ad campaigns looking for malpractice victims and health insurance prices going through the roof. The court ruled it is protected free speech and that is probably correct. But, a creative regulator ought to be able to reduce coverage for some of these abused procedures and drugs. You have the right to advertise whatever you want, however, I don’t have the obligation to pay for it. Perhaps advertising should be allowed only for elective, out-of-pocket treatments and there should be a surtax on the legal fees derived from malpractice awards. It makes as much sense as taxing someone for simply getting old.
–Typical, the P.D. ‘Editorial Board’ uses a debunked story about Robin Beaton, complete with heart-rending photo, to sell their propaganda piece.
–All good leftists know that packaging is everything.
WASHINGTON — One of President Barack Obama’s health care “horror stories” is about a woman who, he says, lost her … Robin Lynn Beaton, 59, of Waxahachie, …
nypost.com/p/news/politics/acne_horror_story_not_true_089…
The Associated Press: FACT CHECK: Some Obama health care …
Robin Lynn Beaton, 59, of Waxahachie, Texas, indeed had her insurance suspended … Obama Is Caught in Another Health Care Horror Story.- Sep 29, 2009 …
google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5joq4iokwjNL6dX34M9
D. Walker, I currently have a low premium, high deductible policy. From what I have read of the reform, this option will no longer be available to me. I will be forced to purchase a higher premium, low deductible plan.
How is this allowing me to choose? What right does the government have to take this option away from me?
Sick people need coverage and consume more health care dollars, so allowing more of those folks into the system without an influx of new healthy folks is going to raise costs, no matter what other gimmicks such as limiting overhead get added into the mix. It’s simple economics.
Under the Democratic bills, federal tax credits to help make health insurance affordable for millions of low- and middle-income households won’t start flowing until 2013 — after the next presidential election. But Medicare cuts and a sizable chunk of the tax increases to pay for the overhaul kick in immediately.
Insurance companies are a bunch of unfeeling, selfish Bassards. Tax them out of existance and give us a public option.
Here is an example of Govt run.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/13/tracking-taxes-essential-air-service/
“Insurance companies are a bunch of unfeeling, selfish Bassards. Tax them out of existance and give us a public option.”-Kenrick
–Those “bassards” “existance”, or existence, as most spell it, is better than your faceless, nameless, unelected and inappellable bureaucrat deciding who gets what, in terms of health care.
jmas,
What you have heard is incorrect. In any exchange, coop etc. being proposed there would be different companies and insurance coverages to choose from.
They are in the process of putting several bills together to come up with one good one that will go to the floor now that Bancus Bill has passed. So the thing for you, I and everyone else to do now is to let our lawmakers know that we want real reform that work for you, I and the citizens and not what works best for the insurance industry who bring nothing to the table of real vale regarding healthcare.
Learn everything that you can about this issue from ALL sources. Listen to what everyone on ALL sides of this issue have to say, and go to and listen to many different sources and draw your conclusions from what you have learned. Then, please voice your opinion to the lawmakers and do not allow them to allow the insurance industry to control the direction that any reform takes.