Skip to main content

View Diary: House deform bill CHOPS CHIP abandoning children's health needs (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you have any idea how little money that is? (0+ / 0-)

    And how rapidly the subsidies vanish as a family makes a tiny bit more money? Or how they have set it up to rise every year, instead of having a limit on uncovered costs that is pegged to INCOME like civilized countries do.

    " How It Would Work

    Solomon’s paper offers an example of a family of three making 220 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $40,282. In the first year, the family would be required to pay 8 percent of its income for premiums, or $3,223. That amount represents 29 percent of $11,083, the average 2009 cost of high deductible family coverage offered by employers. (note that they are still exposed to a potentially unlimited amount of co-pays and other uncovered costs, despite having paid for insurance.)

    Let's assume in subsequent years that the family’s income kept pace with inflation and they remained at 220 percent of the federal poverty level. They would continue to pay 29 percent of the cost of the premium. But because premiums are likely to rise faster than inflation, Solomon’s analysis found, the family’s (premium) cost would soon rise above 8 percent of their income.

    Since 1999, insurance premiums have jumped 131 percent, while wages increased 38 percent, according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is a program of the Foundation.) This year, the average premium for all family policies rose about 5 percent, to $13,375 annually, the foundation reported, while workers’ wages rose 3.1 percent.

    Robert Laszewski, president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Arlington, Va., says the indexing makes it harder for Congress to meet President Barack Obama’s goals of providing affordable coverage. "The president has promised health insurance security for the middle class, but there are ... problems with that," he said. "The first is the size of the subsidies to start with. And apparently, the way that Senate Finance has structured the plan, the subsidies as a percentage of income will dwindle each year."

    All the major bills before Congress have subsidies for people under 400 percent of poverty, which is currently $73,240 for a family of three. They all link the amount people getting subsidies would have to pay to a percentage of their income in the first year.

    The Finance Committee provision (.pdf) would help hold down the amount of federal subsidies needed, by shifting more of the growth in costs to consumers over time. Already, subsidies represent about $450 billion of the estimated $900 billion price tag of the legislation over 10 years.

    "They did this to make subsidies a little cheaper," says Karen Pollitz, research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University. "But it means that if you’re [a low-income policyholder] struggling in the first year, it will get harder and harder ... unless we have some massive breakthrough in cost containment" and the growth of premiums slows.

    A policy paper by Elise Gould and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez at the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, says payments by low- and middle-income families should be based on a percentage of income, not premium costs so that "subsidies do not become grossly insufficient over time."

    Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

    by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:52:27 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The children would be exposed to the same costs (0+ / 0-)

      as adults, and children with older parents are not going to get any help. That means that because of their age, like now, their parents will be forced to buy the entire family the cheapest "insurance" which often wont cover doctor visits or drugs, or the entire family will go without.

      THIS IS NOT REFORM, its a hijacking.

      Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

      by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:56:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the premiums, uncovered costs and drug costs (0+ / 0-)

        will continue to rise, three to four times faster than inflation.

        That is not reform, its a hijacking of the 2008 election.

        Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

        by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:58:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They simply haven't allocated enough money (0+ / 0-)

          to make a dent in the huge problem without real cost control.

          that is the underlying problem, and its a HUGE one. Thats why we need the savings of single payer, or its going to get worse from here.

          Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

          by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 11:01:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Which bill are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

      You impugn the credits based on the Senate bill, which does not end CHIP, whilst complaining about the clause in the House bill to end CHIP.

      You're not arguing honestly. This does not surprise me.

      Oh look - your source, the CBPP says the House bill's highlights include "slowing health care cost growth". It also points out that the House bill not only provides substantially more generous assistance with premiums for families in the 150-400% FPL range (plus, of course, expanding Medicaid to families in the 133-150% range), it also provides cost-sharing assistance, so that a family's total healthcare expenditure IS capped relative to their income. In fact, the Finance committee bill also does that, but with a higher cap.

      Bottom line is, you're full of shit.

      In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

      by sullivanst on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 11:19:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The House bill cuts CHIP and forces children into (0+ / 0-)

        private insurance.. where they will NOT get affordable care.

        The private plans that the working poor can afford are the typical high deductible packages that end up being disaster for the chronically ill. People with chronic illnesses will find themselves in impossible situations, because the amounts of money necessary to both pay premiums and pay uncovered costs has no limit. Obama gave away the store, so we can't cut costs

        You know as well as I do that they are passing on the cost to those who can least afford them.

        As you know. healthcare costs rise 3-4 times faster than wages, and rather than limiting the impact of that rise, (which they are morally obligated to, since they volunteered away real cost control everything) they pass it on to the unaware nation..People dont realize that the amount of money families have to pay will rise. With income, with age, with blips in the economy. Given the situation, we need single payer!

        Its as if Obama bought something way too expensive for himself and his friends (their isolation from responsibility for the wrongful preservation of a system that kills thousands a year, one every 12 minutes) on our credit card, without telling us, but now we have to pay the bill.

        Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

        by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:29:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site