Baucus Bill: Average family will be forced to pay $7000+ for private insurance

[garybeck]

(if you're self employed or if your employer doesn't pay for it)

Health insurance bills could be hardship for many

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/10/health-insurance-bills-could-be-hardship-for-many/

The legislation advancing in Congress would require all Americans to get insurance — through an employer, a government program or by buying it themselves.

The Health Reform Subsidy Calculator provides ballpark estimates of what households of varying incomes and ages would pay under the different Democratic health care bills. The legislation is still a work in progress and the calculator only a rough guide. Nonetheless, the results are revealing.

A family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class. But that family would pay $7,110 to buy its own health insurance under the plan from the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.

The family would get a tax credit of $3,970 to help pay for a policy worth $11,080. But the balance due — $7,110 — is real money. Maybe it's less than the rent, but it's probably more than a car loan payment.

....
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/10/health-insurance-bills-could-be-hardship-for-many/

[Nikki Stone1]

1. Good God.

This is just crazy,

[garybeck]

2. how in the world could this guy have a D next to his name?

OH maybe it stands for DICK.

[Horse with no Name]

41. What a terrible thing to say

when you know damned well it stands for DOLLARS...($D)

[thunder rising]

3. On the shiny side the proposal as shitty as it is comes out of committee on Tuesday. Take a breath.

[CoffeeCat]

4. Is this how they'll imprison the poor?

If you don't pay your mandated health insurance, then you get fined and you get in trouble.

Your insurance bill continues to increase, as do the fines, penalties and taxes.

Pretty soon--you're just carted off to the stony lonesome for failing to pay.

Geeeeeez. This is so completely ridiculous that we need healthcare reform and that people
are dying--and these corporatist bastards use that misfortune as an opportunity to enrich
the insurance companies and screw the American people to the wall.

Unfrickinbelievable!

[PSPS]

5. "making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class"

A family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class. But that family would pay $7,110 to buy its own health insurance under the plan from the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.

Gee, that's funny. The "middle class" is $250K/year according to republicans when they are promoting "tax cuts for the middle class."

But, back to the point, remember that this senate committee bill is just that -- a committee bill. It still has to go through a floor vote where it can be modified, plus a conference with the house bills where more changes will be made. So it's a mistake to treat one committee's bill as the final bill.

In any case, I'd like to see them try to compel anyone to pay $7,000 to the lavishly compensated billionaire CEO's of the private insurance racket. Plus, these crooks would get yet another $3,000 straight out of the treasury, laundered as a "tax credit." Yeah, like that's going to work.

[Go2Peace]

30. I don't like this bill, but really, a 45 year old with a family of 4 should already be paying this

If they are uninsured with a family of 4 and a middle income they are indeed part of the problem. I would rather fix that problem by just making a mandatory single payer tax payed system. But as the system stands this "theoretical" family is a large part of what is causing my own health insurance to be too expensive. They indeed had better start paying in.

[JDPriestly]

35. The problem with the amount is that it includes too many items

we don't need: profits, CEO salaries (as well as the salaries of other top managers who add no value for their money), lobbying costs, advertising -- all costs that do not in any way enhance the health care that is provided. We do not need private health insurance. That's the bottom line.

[Go2Peace]

42. I agree with you

[SoCalDem]

44. People with that income are probably receiving employer-assisted insurance coverage

It may be "worth" the 11K-something figure, but the boss is paying part of it.

If they are self-employed and do NOT have insurance at all, they are indeed "part of the problem".

The Baucus nonsense presumes that people are buying their own insurance, which most people are not.

Old people have Medicare and are paying out of pocket for supplemental policies that often are worthless when actually used

Poor people have medicaid, for which they pay nothing now, and probably would still pay nothing later

very rich people are not a factor, since they can afford to self-insure, or may have complete coverage as part of some golden parachute, opened decades earlier

truly middle class...30-50K may or may not have access to good coverage, or may have lost coverage due to job loss.. THESE are the "targets" of the baucus bill.. He aims to suck them into the grasp of insurance companies.. These are the people living on credit cards & wishes..these people can least afford the "extra" for coverage..It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out

[WCGreen]

6. MrsWCGreen and I pay about $ 5,400 for our share of our Health Insurance...

This isn't counting the match from her employer or the other $4,000 we pay for deductibles and prescriptions.

We only make about $55k between the two of us...

[Diane R]

8. My husband and I pay over $10,000 for just the two of us.

[Ms. Toad]

15. 22,000 here for a family of three

under our small business plan. $11,080 for a family of 4 sounds pretty good to me.

Since the average health care costs are between $5000 and $5000, it is actually lower than I expected.

It is going to be a shock for those who have been lucky enough to be able to purchase insurance on the open market, through a large business, or to those who have been going without - but until we implement a single payer system it is a reasonable price to pay to ensure that everyone is at least guaranteed access to coverage, particularly with the hefty subsidies that will be available to help out those without the ability to pay. The folks it will hit hardest are those at the top end of the subsidy/lower end of the unsubsidized - for anyone in that range not already buying insurance, the premium will hurt.

[Mimosa]

32. Mid 50s: Dh pays 11K for 2 of us. 70/30 plan, 10K deductible.

We'd wanted single payer. Our current BC/BS plan cost us $800 or more a month. 70/30 plan, $10,000 deductible each and both of us have pre-existing excluded conditions.

What's going to change for us? We cannot afford the diagnostic tests our doctors want us to get. We've nearly 10 years to try to make it to Medicare. Did I mention my excluded condition is MS and I can't afford treatment but we still pay for insurance? We dare not go without. Wouldn't want to lose our home in case either of us had an accident.

I worked hard to get Obama elected. :(

[KharmaTrain]

7. That's $200 Per Month Per Person...Free Care vs. Reasonable Care

Even with the insurance companies made illegal, there still are going to be major health care expenses. Reform hasn't addressed tort reform that keeps doctor's insurance rates high or curbs on pharmaceutical costs or the high costs of medical equipment and supplies. Who pays? Honestly. Are you looking for reasonable health care or free care? Is any cost too much and then who should pay? Or what's an equitable rate? $200 a month per person is less than one spends on food or rent/mortgage and should be well within someone's earning capacity. Rememeber with private insurance gone, so is the money taken out of your check (as well as his/her employer's contribution that someone has to make up).

The other side of the coin is if health care costs forced down, where do the cuts come from? Less hospital employees? Capping doctors fees thus pushing them to take on more patients (and less personal care) to make up for the shortfall? When people propose to make cuts, honestly, who bites the bullet or does it fall upon the government to make up the difference?

Don't get me wrong...I'm a very strong proponent of Public Option but I do see those here that think true reform means virtually no-cost care. If not, then to bring prices down lower than $200 would mean even greater subsidies which will mean more in taxes. Where's the "happy medium"?

[sabrina 1]

14. The cuts could start with eliminating the middlemen, who

cost the country one third of all money paid to them, for 'overhead'.

The government-run Medicaire program has overhead of one tenth of that.

With a Single Payer system, no one would be paying premiums to the now defunct Insurance Industry. How much would that save both individuals and businesses?

Having eliminated these costs, businesses could increase salaries. Taxes could be raised to cover the cost of health-care for everyone. Think of the premiums now being paid to the Insurance industry as taxes and think of one third of that going for profit. Even if taxes were raised by one half of those premiums on businesses and individuals, it would still be less than what people are now paying. And the overhead would be nowhere near what is it is now.

And even with that overhead and high premiums, people are still not getting the care they need.

As Kucinich said 'we are paying for a Single Payer system, but we are not getting it'.

Nothing is free. We are paying for Medicaire and Medicaid right now as well as paying high premiums to an industry that is not needed at all.

Again, to quote Kucinich, 'what do they do' that cannot be done far more eifficiently by Medicaire and at far less cost?

What is really going on is that the Insurance Industry is in trouble. As more and more people lose their jobs, more people are not paying their premiums. They need a bail-out, just as Wall St. did and Baucus et al are struggling hard to get it for them while pretending that what they are doing is 'health-care' reform. Fortunately people are no longer that easily fooled.

[KharmaTrain]

18. You Missed My Question...

My scenario was with the "middle man"...the insurance companies removed. You'd cut costs but there still would be an expensive system. If you haven't noticed, Medicare and Medicaid are having financial problems as well...those who use that system are subsidized by those who don't...if you increase the pool of people covered you either need to increase taxes (on ALL) or expect far less care as hospitals and doctors will have to adjust their services to the money available. Bottom line...there is no free lunch, there is no free medical care. Thus, the question...what's an equitable payment? Again...if you "eliminate the middle man", you also then will move away from the current employer-based system who pays upwards of 50% or more of a person's insurance through their matching contributions. Now do you want the government to not only pick up the employer's share but yours as well?

I'm looking ahead here. The object of a public option is to force competition but the government isn't set up at this point to solely fund everyone's healthcare (what some believe as single-payer) and then who pays? As Senator Rockafeller has pointed out, if the current system is allowed to stay and people continue to lose jobs and insurance at the large numbers we're currently seeing, it will force the government to act.

The amount you're currently paying for Medicare and SSI are accumulated over a working lifetime, the healthy pay now for the elderly and others who are beneficiaries...but it's currently not capable of handling full care for everyone. Again, do you raise taxes and then on whom? Soak the rich? Even then, there's not going to be enough. Thus back to my question...what amount is a fair amount for a person to pay to cover their share of a government run program? $100 a month? $200 a month? Do you get care based on how much you contribute? No matter what system is chosen, these questions need to be addressed.

[sabrina 1]

29. Okay, you raise legitimate points.

Regarding the loss of the employer-paid premiums. For those businesses that make those payments the cost is at the moment, astronomical. So with the elimination of the middle-man, those businesses would be saving an enormous amount of money. I think I sort of addressed that in my post above.

I am sure that most businesses would be more than willing to pay at least half of what they are now paying to the Insurance Industry, in taxes. It would be going directly (a medical care tax) to a program like Medicare, without the 30% overhead that we now pay for. Even if they paid three quarters of what they are now paying, it would still save businesses a lot of money, and more of the money they are spending on HC, would actually go directly to pay for HC and not for profit.

I think we agree on taxes being raised on individuals also. And, like the businesses, since they would no longer be paying for premiums, part of the money could go to a medical care tax.

I agree that everyone will have to pay into the system, everyone who can that is. There will always be people who cannot, such as the elderly, the very poor and the disabled. Most that demographic however, is already being taken care of by either medicaid or medicare. I think we have to assume that the poor and the old and disabled will always be with us and we will have to take care of them. That is what any decent society does.

Most people who have done the math on this, believe that Single Payer is the cheapest and most efficient way to go. I don't think anyone is saying it is free, but it can be far more productive and most of all, cost efficient. No one eg, will be able to give themselves a $56 million dollar salary while refusing to pay for someone's cancer treatment. That's a huge saving right there. For that one CEO's salary, think of all the people who could be treated. A government run program would pay decent salaries, but nothing like these obscene amounts which simply cannot be justified.

One thing that will need to be addressed, and the Mass. system revealed how this will be a problem. With so many more people being treated, we will need more doctors, nurses and other medical workers and hospitals. All that would create jobs and would help the economy.

True a lot has to be worked out. But one thing is certain, the system we now have is a failure on every level, from the cost to the criminal negligence involved that allows tens of thousands of Americans to die every year. There probably isn't a worse system anywhere in the industrialized world.

[JDPriestly]

37. Medicare is not too badly off right now. The problems that Medicare

will face in the future are primarily due to the demographic bubble of the baby boomers. The number of people supporting the Medicare obligations will decline as baby boomers retire. The number of people needing benefits will increase.

Medicare fraud is a problem, but it is not the main problem, which is the huge number of baby boomers who will soon retire and be eligible for Medicare.

There really is no alternative to Medicare other than letting old people die in horrible misery.

[newspeak]

45. we pay for medicare now

I'm willing to have my medicare increased and go into the system. I trust government run medical care over for profit shite of insurance. Huge deductible so you can afford the damn thing and basically get nothing in return unless you get seriously ill. And then, they'll still try to screw with you so they won't have to pay. I am totally against FORCING Americans to pay into for profit insurance.

Baucus can take his bill and stick it--I'm not willing to give money to his insurance "buddies."

[garybeck]

27. read reply #8 n/t

[JDPriestly]

36. If your doctor cuts off the wrong leg in an operation, you will not only

incur additional health care costs but perhaps your ability to earn the living you now earn.

Medical malpractice litigation is not a blood sport. Lawyers who file many frivolous malpractice suits end up bankrupt, penniless. Tort reform will not lower the cost of health care very much at all.

California has strict laws preventing frivolous medical malpractice insurance. Very few medical malpractice cases can actually make it beyond the filing of a complaint. Medical malpractice insurance is still a necessity. It still costs a lot.

Actually, if you want to reduce the value of the losses incurred when a doctor or hospital makes a mistake, bring in single payer. Under single payer, everyone is insured forever. Thus, if a doctor does make a mistake, the victim does not have to sue in order to insure to be covered for the cost of medical care.

[Swamp Rat]

9. 2014!

:grr:

[WCGreen]

10. He isn't up until 2014...

[Swamp Rat]

11. Wishful thinking.

I wish there was a way to unseat him now.

[Skittles]

12. IT'S CHANGE, BABY!!!!

[tomm2thumbs]

13. no doubt filings are already in the works to fight this as unconstitutional - we'll see what happens

my guess is this will go to the Supreme Court before anything is able to be enacted and that particular Court, which ruled for Bush in the national election, will rule that the Federal Government cannot mandate Americans buy private health care - much that it cannot mandate we all buy cars or mandate we all buy eye exam insurance, dental plans or life insurance - and it will show that 'Medicare for All' was the only way to handle this all along.

[JDPriestly]

16. Obama does not want to raise taxes. He does not want single payer.

So, the middle class will have to pay. Many members of the middle class are paying that much and more for health insurance right now.

[Mimosa]

33. Obama wanted single payer in June 2008. What changed? n/t

[JDPriestly]

34. He got a better view at the financial condition of our country.

No president has the courage to tell the American people that we are, in fact, utterly impoverished. The illusion of wealth is so widespread in this country. How many times have I heard Americans talk about what a wealthy country we are? Actually, truly wealthy people have assets, not just debts. Sure, a lot of people who over their heads in debt swagger around spending money as if they had it. That's not wealth. That's just deferred indigence.

Our country is actually just deferring recognition of its indigent state. I'm not anti-American. We have been robbed. The sooner we recognize it, the better our chance of identifying the thieves and taking our wealth back.

President Obama is not a particularly courageous man. He should have gone to the American people the moment he learned the truth.

[Monk06]

17. British Columbia, Canada..... BCMed yearly premium for a family of four or more

earning $28,000 or more is $1296.00 per year
The rate is the same if your total family income
is $28,000 per year of $28 Million per year.

You Americans are being hosed and will continue
to be hosed whether the Rs or the Ds are running
the show because BIG INSURANCE owns both parties

[Fumesucker]

19. Thank you for your injection of sanity into this discussion..

The numbers that are being thrown around are insane, IMO.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

20. Hear that USA?! $27 a week for a family of 4 regardless of income!!!!!

You are correct. We are being hosed and our government is owned lock stock and barrel by the insurance industry. They are killing and bankrupting us and our legislature are accomplices.

We need to lobby Canada to accept us as health refugees or allow us to purchase Canadian policies at triple your rate to help bolster your system and get care for ourselves.

Would you consider adopting a very nice American couple?

[ctaylors6]

39. is that including the part of income taxes that goes to health care?

that's really inexpensive

[Monk06]

40. The figure I quoted is based on adjusted net income which is explained

here on the BC Government website which explains the premium schedule for BC Med plus available subsidies. This page explains it all so bookmark it if you are interested

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html

From the above link, "Regular premium assistance offers subsidies ranging from 20 to 100 per cent, based on an individual's net income (or a couple's combined net income) for the preceding tax year, less deductions for age, family size and disability. If the resulting amount referred to as "adjusted net income" is $28,000 or below, a subsidy is available."

[ctaylors6]

43. thanks for the info! so that's an out of pocket premium, and doesn't include taxes

I've been trying to do an apples to apples comparison of what canadians pay of their own money toward health care vs what americans would pay under the new plan. I read on the canadian federal government website that the federal government transfers 9 out of every 100 federal income tax dollars to the provinces for health care. Then the provinces fund health care in part through combination of taxes and/or premiums (varies from province to province).

For the new US plan, if someone making $50,000 pays $X premium but doesn't pay any additional taxes for health care, I was trying to compare to canada but wanted to include the amount paid in taxes for health care to make it a more accurate comparison. Hope that makes sense.
Thanks again for the info.

[Monk06]

47. Minor correction. BC is premium based Saskatchewan citizens pay through their Provinical income tax

[eridani]

21. The Netherlands has mandatory private insurance costing 100 euros/month/adult

NO copays or deductibles, and NO age discrimination.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

23. Our uniquely American system demands that we pay 6 times as much and STILL have

deductables and co-pays. Our uniquely American system transfers money from the pockets of the American people into the pockets of the for profit insureres who transfer it into the pockets of their executives and also puts some in the pockets of the politicians.

We must never disrupt this gravy train! The Dutch must be insane if they don't see the benfit of the American system.

Hey - we're number 37! (Waving big styrofoam 3 and 7 fingers)

[KG]

22. this is what you get when the entities that are sposed to be regulated write the legislation.

reform? it's a dog-and-pony show put on by both parties.

[Vinnie From Indy]

24. And, that's just for starters!

IS there any doubt that the insurers will STILL raise rates. In addition, the insurers are probably already hard at work devising methods to make care so hard to get that it might as well be a claim denial.

[watercolors]

25. No way my daughter who is single mom could afford it!

She has two children in college, and does the best she can. I had to insist on her getting a mamogram and check-up, I paid for it. She needs some dental work also. she has taken on a second job just on weekends to keep up. She runs a home day care, and the state keeps adding new taxes constantly, she is liecensed, but gets frustrated by the new charges and regulations that state comes up with.

[HughMoran]

26. But when I stated that my insurance rate was $14k/year, people said I was whining

So which is it? $7k is excessive or $14k isn't? :(

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

31. I can't imagine anyone not thinking 14K a year is excessive

I don't think many people have a handle on the costs, maybe because their employer picks up some or most it?

[Withywindle]

28. And I suppose we single people are twice screwed.

I don't begrudge extra help for families with kids, I really don't. But single people already take a big economic hit compared folks who have an employed partner to share housing/groceries/transportation/utilities costs with. Many people who are married can fall back on their spouse's insurance for a while between jobs (in the more livable and rational states, this can include same-sex partners.)

Single people of the lower-middle-class, working-class, and working poor are in many ways SOL. Especially those of us 40 and over.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Same sex families? Well, the subsides are for 'families'

and we are legally strangers to each other. So are we a family or not? Are we a family when they want to charge more, and not when we'd get a tax break?
The sharing of insurance has more to do with the employer than with State laws. And Fed laws, well, a huge part of why we need equality is because our Social Security and Medicare benefits are not shared with our spouses, as the Federal government defines marriage as one man and one woman, and Obama does as well. It is utterly discriminatory and unfair.
So legally, gay couples are singles, that is how we file with the IRS after years of being together. No State law can change that.

[madville]

38. For many people it may turn into BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

Hopefully there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the poor and middle class. Of all the stuff up in the air right now I'll guarantee everybody one thing this plan won't be: FREE

[Subdivisions]

48. FUCK THIS!!! I don't have $7 to pay for health insurance, much less $7000! How

the fuck do they expect me to do this?

FUCK THE WHOLE GODDAMNED LOT OF THEM!

[TorchTheWitch]

49. I so hear that - I'm in the same boat

And according to the HELP bill, I make too much money to qualify for any subsidy. What we are going to end up getting IF we're lucky is something in between the HELP bill and the Baucus crap bill, and I can't afford either one.

There is a big reason whatever POS passes won't kick in until after the next presidential election... because whatever passes will be horrible and won't work. They went into this "reform" scam knowing that.

It's discouraging as hell that even here of all places so many people just don't seem to get that most of the middle class has been living paycheck to paycheck and is drowning in debt. It doesn't MATTER how much you make, it matters how much you have left after paying all your bills which for many people includes school tuition for kids, child support, school loans, debt payments and loads of other paycheck eating bills other than housing, utilities, food, and transportation.

I live in a dump in the crappiest section of the neighborhood, own a 12 year old piece of shit car on it's last legs, and facing astronomical dental work I don't have a dime to pay for (that's where MY immediate and vital medical needs are which this reform totally ignores). Thankfully, I don't have any debt, and I'm one of the LUCKY ones in that. Yet my income is determined by the HELP bill to be such a glorious amount that I don't qualify for ANY subsidy.... and what we are going to get in a reform bill IS going to be worse than what that HELP bill provides.

I'm DISGUSTED that it's the DEMOCRATS pushing this Repuke wet dream of a reform scam. The ONLY reason they're screaming about it is because it isn't THEIR brainchild, and therefore, they will not be getting those juicy Insurance Industry campaign dollars.