The CBO on insurance premiums

[FUCK THE POLICE]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/the-cbo-on-insurance-premiums/

The CBO on insurance premiums

The Congressional Budget Office has released its much-awaited estimate on how the Senate health care bill would affect premiums. It’s good news from the point of view of reform advocates: premiums would stay about the same for people with group coverage, while falling significantly for most of those in the small-group or individual markets. Jon Gruber has crunched the numbers, and produces this convenient chart (via Yglesias):

But here’s the thing: senior Republican politicians suffer from reading comprehension. (To be fair, the CBO report is written in a remarkably elliptical style). Several have already claimed that the report shows that premiums will rise.
And they probably won’t get called on it. More than that, in today’s Beltway, where David Broder can say that he can’t find an expert who believes the Senate bill is deficit neutral when the Congressional Budget Office says it is, the good news in this report may well just be ignored.
Anyway, for what it’s worth the CBO has now given the Senate bill a clean bill of, um, health on both its budget impact and its impact on families.

 

[Chapdog]

that like saying the government is going to save money by adding coverage to 30+Million Americans. The health care savings estimates I am hearing is reminiscent of the voodoo trickle down economics that Democrats have been ripping on for 30 years. Have we come full circle?

 

[Topspin]

I like the mandate, I've bought and sold health insurance ETF twice already for a profit.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The budget office said the analysis of premiums was extremely complex, so the experience of individuals and families "could vary significantly from the average.”

“In general,” it said, “the proposal would tend to increase premiums for people who are young and relatively healthy, and decrease premiums for those who are older and relatively unhealthy.”

Great, so those that stay fit get to pay for the fat pieces of shit who want to sit on the couch eating McDonalds and twinkies.

Under the legislation, it said, the average premium per person in the individual insurance market would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher than under current law. But, it said, most people in this market — 18 million of the 32 million people buying insurance on their own — would qualify for federal subsidies, which would reduce their costs well below what they would have to pay under current law.

So... without government subsidies, the plan INCREASES premiums. But the politicians want to hide this increase by subsidizing people and pretending the money isn't still being spent via tax dollars.

Under the bill, the budget office said, individual policies would have to provide more benefits and pay a larger share of costs than most existing policies do. In other words, it said, some people would pay more, but would also get more.

Great... so now we all get to pay for what CONGRESS thinks we need, rather than paying for what we ACTUALLY need.

Insurers, it said, would have to cover certain services that, in many cases, are not covered by existing policies in the individual insurance market. These include maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health services and substance abuse treatment. Moreover, it said, under the legislation, insurance would cover an average of 72 percent of medical costs for people buying insurance on their own, up from 60 percent under current law.

So the possibility for people going bankrupt due to medical bills is still there? I thought that was supposed to be addressed with this almighty bill??? My current plan dictates that I will pay no more than $5k per year out of pocket. Under this plan, if I have major medical needs, I get to pay 28% of the total costs. Wow.... THANKS CONGRESS!

The budget office said it foresaw “smaller effects on premiums for employment-based coverage.”

In groups with 50 or fewer employees, it said, unsubsidized premiums in 2016 would average $7,800 a year for individuals and $19,200 for families — scarcely any different from the amounts expected under current law. Of the 25 million people receiving coverage from small businesses, it said, 3 million would qualify for subsidies, which would reduce their premiums by an average of 8 percent to 11 percent.

So on the portion that MOST people currently have... there will be little effect on premiums??? Then what is the friggin point?

Large employers would generally not be eligible for such assistance. Their premiums in 2016 under the bill would average $7,300 for individual coverage and $20,100 for family coverage, the report said. Under current law, the comparable figures would be $7,400 for individual coverage and $20,300 for family coverage.

So again... this bill does little to address the high COSTS... which is the MAIN problem. Thanks OBAMACARE!

The Senate bill would impose an excise tax on high-premium health plans offered by employers. People who remain in such “Cadillac health plans” would pay higher premiums, but most people would avoid the effect of the tax by enrolling in plans with lower premiums, the budget office said.

Insert Union ass whuppin here on the Dem Senators that vote for this....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

congress should be forced on the government option

 

[evince]

Preventative care is the reason this will save the money cons dont think it will.

Why is it so many other countries can do what Americans who happen to be cons think WE cant do?

Why do you think they are so much better than us?

 

[Bonestorm]

congress should be forced on the government option

Under the Senate bill they are, jackass.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

congress should be forced on the government option

HR 615

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment, courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn which would require all Members of Congress and their staff members to enroll20in any new government-run health plan.

Congressman John Fleming has proposed an amendment that would require Congressmen and Senators to take the same health care plan that they would force on us. (Under proposed legislation they are exempt.)

 

[Chapdog]

Preventative care is the reason this will save the money cons dont think it will.

Why is it so many other countries can do what Americans who happen to be cons think WE cant do?

Why do you think they are so much better than us?

you mean like restricting mammograms till after 50 and eliminating coverage for prostate exams after age 75.. cause you know thoes people who a preventative saved aren't statistically worth it. Expect lots of the same if we ever get universal healthcare.. Things that are covered now that prevent major illnesses will be eliminated.

You have to admit this is a scary scenario.. I have no problem giving some coverage to poor fat lazy people who don't bother thinking for themselves but I do have a problem when it effects the quality and availability of my families health care. Id just assume take away there personal tax exemptions and add some tax to the rich or something to just add medicare to the people who need it.

 

[evince]

Force???

who will be forced into the program?

 

[evince]

you mean like restricting mammograms till after 50 and eliminating coverage for prostate exams after age 75.. cause you know thoes people who a preventative saved aren't statistically worth it. Expect lots of the same if we ever get universal healthcare.. Things that are covered now that prevent major illnesses will be eliminated.

You have to admit this is a scary scenario.. I have no problem giving some coverage to poor fat lazy people who don't bother thinking for themselves but I do have a problem when it effects the quality and availability of my families health care. Id just assume take away there personal tax exemptions and add some tax to the rich or something to just add medicare to the people who need it.

There is nothing in the bill that denies any of this coverage

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Preventative care is the reason this will save the money cons dont think it will.

Why is it so many other countries can do what Americans who happen to be cons think WE cant do?

Why do you think they are so much better than us?

LMAO....

While I agree preventative care is a good thing... that is not going to address the costs problems on its own and it is ridiculous to pretend that it will.

Other countries are not like the US. Many of the countries that the left touts as examples we should follow do not have the same situation we do.

1) Population density is one factor that increases our costs over their's
2) Litigation is another
3) Defensive medicine is a third

Finally... they are NOT better than us. The responsiveness of the US system and QUALITY of care is second to none (though others do also have high quality of care). It is our COSTS that causes us to 'rank' low on the WHO list that the left loves so much to quote. That and the arbitrary 'fairness' bullshit.

 

[Chapdog]

There is nothing in the bill that denies any of this coverage

Who dictates on what will be covered?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Force???

who will be forced into the program?

All members of Congress and their Staff (at least according to the Senate bill)

 

[Chapdog]

I honestly think we should wait till after the boomer generation to implement this. Aging boomers are the largest drain on health we will ever see in this country and we are also going to have a problem with ssi. hell by the time the take take take make laws that benefit us only boomers die off we are gong to be bankrupt.

 

[evince]

HR 615

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment, courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn which would require all Members of Congress and their staff members to enroll20in any new government-run health plan.

Congressman John Fleming has proposed an amendment that would require Congressmen and Senators to take the same health care plan that they would force on us. (Under proposed legislation they are exempt.)

who will be forced into this ?

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO....

While I agree preventative care is a good thing... that is not going to address the costs problems on its own and it is ridiculous to pretend that it will.

Other countries are not like the US. Many of the countries that the left touts as examples we should follow do not have the same situation we do.

1) Population density is one factor that increases our costs over their's
2) Litigation is another
3) Defensive medicine is a third

Finally... they are NOT better than us. The responsiveness of the US system and QUALITY of care is second to none (though others do also have high quality of care). It is our COSTS that causes us to 'rank' low on the WHO list that the left loves so much to quote. That and the arbitrary 'fairness' bullshit.

This shit again? Other countries have lower costs because their prices are lower. Theiur prices are lower because the government sets the prices. Population density has zero to do with it. And litigation/preventive medicine account for about 0.5% of healthcare costs on the United States, next to nothing.

Stop making shit up as you go along. I understand that you got yours so you don't give a shit about anyone else and you hate the healthcare reform bill as a result, but there is no need to lie about things.

 

[evince]

Who dictates on what will be covered?

Those are medical recomendations made by medical professionals and are not mandated rules for treatment.

They have noithing to do with what will be covered care.

 

[Bonestorm]

All members of Congress and their Staff (at least according to the Senate bill)

Staff are not included, just members of Congress.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This shit again? Other countries have lower costs because their prices are lower. Theiur prices are lower because the government sets the prices. Population density has zero to do with it. And litigation/preventive medicine account for about 0.5% of healthcare costs on the United States, next to nothing.

Stop making shit up as you go along. I understand that you got yours so you don't give a shit about anyone else and you hate the healthcare reform bill as a result, but there is no need to lie about things.

That is complete bullshit. You think that because the government 'sets a price' that supply and demand no longer exist? That transportation costs and duplication doesn't increase costs.

You continue to say 'population density has nothing to due with costs' and then turn around and refuse to answer the simple question I posed to you long ago.

Which costs more..... hospital/medical services for one city with a population of a million people or the same exact services for 40 cities with a combined population of one million people?

I know you will avoid answering that again. Probably by yet another strawman. (such as your idiocy above pretending I don't care about others and because I 'got mine')