What The Bill Says
The House bill on ‘health care reform’ is currently under debate, and may be voted on before the weekend is over.
Betsy McCaughey notes some of “What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says”:
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a “qualified plan.” If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a “grace period” to switch you to a “qualified plan,” meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there’s no grace period. You’ll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a “qualified plan” covers and how much you’ll be legally required to pay for it. That’s like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
That’s just a start. There’s plenty more.
11 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Wow. I’m not certain, but this just might make the Canada and UK plans look good. There’s an awful lot about providing coverage–and not a thing about improving health care or developing good standards of health care. Having access to poor healthcare–at higher prices than ever before–seems ot be the goal. There’s also a lot of medicare cuts in there. Someone ought to tell the seniors about how they won’t get to choose their doctors–or some of the services.
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. Our health care system needs improving. This ain’t it. Just forcing “insurance” coverage on people does NOT equate to good or improving healthcare. It’s a “make the headlines” way to pretend to solve a problem without addressing the problems.
Comment by Maria — 11/7/2009 @ 5:38 pm
A comparison of the various bills.
Comment by BMB — 11/7/2009 @ 7:14 pm
I wonder what the market will do now? I expect this will sail through the Senate. A 17%+ tax-hike would be a record, right, not to mention the deficit surge that the cost of this plan will create that can’t even be covered on the 17%+ hike?
Comment by Henry — 11/8/2009 @ 12:58 am
Mark Steyn:
“…if Barack Obama had been Bill Clinton he’d have woken up on Wednesday morning and begun triangulating. Instead, Obama woke up and figured that he needed more fierce urgency, and right now. The short-term hit in 2010 is worth it for the long-term benefits: Obscure congressmen will be just as happy as obscure ambassadors or obscure chairmen of obscure agencies. And the prize of permanent irreversible statist annexation merits the risk: Governmentalized “health care” puts us on the fast track to Euro-sclerosis and redefines the relationship between citizen and state in ways that make genuine conservative politics all but impossible.”
Comment by BMB — 11/8/2009 @ 10:42 am
Anyone referencing “death panels” in their column immediately loses my interest.
Comment by Brad — 11/8/2009 @ 11:45 am
I don’t care about ‘death panels’. And just shrugging off the discussion because of two words is ignoring the significance of what is happening here.
I do care about my freedoms being crumpled up and tossed in the wastebasket. I do care about being told that I WILL buy health insurance — that meets the government’s specifications, not my own — or I am subject to yet another tax (disguised as a ‘fine’), or I could end up in jail.
Our government has taken over the US auto industry, is on the path to taking over the housing industry with Fannie and Freddie, and now are working on taking over the health care industry. They’re up to nearly 50% of our economy.
What’s next?
Comment by BMB — 11/8/2009 @ 12:29 pm
While I don’t necessarily have a problem with that position, I think with Health Insurance one of two things have to happen — Serious reforms that change costs, which will typically meet someone’s definition of infringing upon their rights — Or else we need to get rid of Medicare. The costs of healthcare have to come down, unless we simply want to get rid of Medicare in which case it really isn’t our problem. Otherwise it is our problem.
As far as the “Death Panels” thing, I have to take the source of the information and anyone who uses that term is clearly not trying to bring light onto the situation. They are trying to obfuscate the conversation. I totally get the argument that having government health insurance policies brings the government into our personal lives and that may not be something we want to do, but then you need to admit that the other outcome is getting rid of Medicare. The same people who are touting about “Death Panels” are suddenly the same people who are staunch defenders of Medicare. Additionally “death panel” is a totally sensationalistic term. Right now when I get sick, my insurance company looks for ways to get out of paying for my care (recission) and also decides whether it is cost effective to pursue the treatment I may want. That looks an awful lot like a “Death Panel” to me, so anyone who is touting them is simply being disingenuous.
If someone is using disinformation in their article I lose interest. As you point out in your own criticisms there are plenty of ways to make your point without trying to confuse or overstate things. I’d rather read articles by someone who is principled and can articulate the same point without resorting to histrionics.
Overall I see the situation as:
1.) The government gets out of the health care business altogether (which evidence seems to suggest will result in higher prices for similar outcomes, but may be a price we’re willing to pay to keep them out of our health decisions)
Or
2.) The government adopts a system to get our prices and outcomes in line with other countries. This will probably look very distasteful to those who want the government out of their lives.
I think it’s a complicated issue and I think phrases like “death panels” and other forms of misinformation don’t do ANY good in searching for a good outcome.
Comment by Brad — 11/8/2009 @ 1:43 pm
I don’t find ‘freedom’ to be real complicated at all. You either have it or you don’t. But anyway, we’ve already been through the whole discussion a number of times. You and other regular readers know where I stand.
And where I stand means next to nothing in the scope of things. I have but one vote, every now and then. The truth is, our destiny lies in the hands of a few hundred suits in Washington and those that pay for their attention.
But as long as we’re at it, why should we stop here? If the gov’t is going to use my tax money to pay for others’ health insurance, then why not go the extra step to bring costs down even further? Ban cigarettes, close down McDonald’s, make 30 mins/day of exercise mandatory, etc. If you’re going to do it, then go ahead — do it all. If people can’t be responsible for their health, then just do it for them.
Comment by BMB — 11/8/2009 @ 1:59 pm
The whole death panel discussion does get people off-track. As does reference to “obama” as the problem because someone will shout “racism.”
Bottom line for me: Giving everyone health INSURANCE will make the problems WORSE–more expensive via taxes, less quality care and yes, wait times and someone else making my health care decisions.
I do not want it to be mandated that I must get an eye exam every year. That was done to further eye professionals–not help my health. I do not want to be told that I will buy health insurance and be told how much it will cost and how often I can get it. Yes, medicare does that today–and guess what? It’s expensive, it’s not paid for (we’re running a deficit here and other places) and the care can only be as good as the care in the US.
To improve care, you don’t force expensive insurance options. It’s a sad day when the government picks a large, expensive “solution” and forces it on everyone as though it solves anything at all. And it would appear that those doing it want to create bigger government, and a legacy–not good healthcare.
Comment by Maria — 11/8/2009 @ 2:18 pm
quote:
The government adopts a system to get our prices and outcomes in line with other countries. This will probably look very distasteful to those who want the government out of their lives.
end quote
The government runs medicare now and can’t do that with medicare. Why does anyone think they’ll be successful just because they implement a larger plan under a different name?
Comment by Maria — 11/8/2009 @ 3:00 pm
Good luck with that, Brad. The inconvenient truth is that care provided by the state will be based on your utility to the state.
Comment by Fred — 11/8/2009 @ 4:46 pm