$644 per month... (health care premiums under an individual-mandate plan)

[regnaD kciN]

There's been a lot of discussion about whose health-care plan is better, and particularly about whether "individual mandates" are needed to provide universal coverage. But one question has been dodged by individual mandate backers: just how much would meeting these mandates cost the average American family?

Well, we all know that the cost of individual (i.e. not through one's business) policies is staggering: $1,000 to $1,200 to cover a family is not unusual. But Sen. Clinton has promised that, as part of her "individual mandate" plan, she would provide "affordable" coverage to average Americans by opening up the Federal Employee's Health Plan to all citizens. Sounds good...but what would that cost?

Actually, I'm in a good position to tell you. My wife works for the federal government, and our family is insured through that program. Since it's deducted automatically from her paycheck, I haven't had cause recently to ask her what the premiums were, until tonight. She checked her pay statements, and provided the following information:

For our family of three, insurance premiums for the Federal Employee's Health Plan come to $464 per month. However, her plan is partially subsidized by the Treasury Department, so our share of the premiums only makes up 72% of the total cost, with the government contributing the remaining 28%. Take away the government contribution (since they obviously wouldn't be paying any share in the premiums of non-employees), and the total premium for a family comes to $644 per month.

Of course, if you're single, you'll pay less, maybe a bit less than half that. And I believe there's also a lower rate for couples without children. But the big question remains: if you're married with kids, and you should lose your job and only be able to find one that doesn't provide health benefits, or if your company decides that "the market demands" that they do away with insurance coverage for their employees, would you be able to afford an extra $644 per month, every month, for mandatory insurance premiums? Because, under an "individual mandate" plan, you would be required by law to pay those premiums, even if it meant you couldn't afford to pay for your mortgage, heating bill, or groceries.

Before casting your vote for a candidate who espouses an individual-mandate plan, ask yourself: Would I feel comfortable having to pay an extra $644 per month? Would I feel comfortable demanding that everyone else do so, whether they could afford it or not? Because that's what an individual-mandate plan means.

[BootinUp]

1. I guess you missed the part where the cost comes down

because everyone is in and because she puts over 100 billion into the system.

[Vinca]

15. Is that insurance execs I hear clapping?

Remove the insurance companies from the mix and the $644 would probably be less than $200.

[BootinUp]

27. Not likely, not if they have read her plan. Maybe you should. nt

[OzarkDem]

28. Both plans have govt funded options

though there aren't many details from Obama's plan.

[musicblind]

29. He did not miss it

he ignored it. Intentionally.

[William769]

2. with your logic why are you not running for President?

Oh yea, your logic. :rofl:

[Uben]

3. Obama's plan would cost you $956 a month

...for the same coverage, but you wouldn't have to buy it. You could remain uninsured and a let the rest of us pay for it.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. But under Obama's plan, everybody gets a free pony!

I want one! I want one! I want one! I want one!

--p!

[BootinUp]

7. And late joiners are likey to pay a penalty

based on recent reporting under his plan.

[cooolandrew]

5. This is why Barack has made the same plan optiional in case people's circujstance change....

....Barack's plan is also the government plan but no enforcement to take it up, it provides very extensive care from what I hear for dental too.

[michaz]

6. We pay $568. per month. My husband is a retired teacher and

the district pays have of his and one third of mine and our granddaughter.

[dmosh42]

8. I would really like to know....

Was this plan approved and written by the insurance companies? Once I get behind on either plan, do I lose my home because I will owe so much? Will these premiums be enough for the insurance companies to continue paying for "golden-parachute" retirement bonuses for their executives? Hopefully, there WON'T be any regulation of the amounts paid for medical services performed by doctors. We don't want one of those European style plans where we could be able to will our property to our kids. WTF!

[mmonk]

9. That's cheaper than what I pay.

[NashVegas]

10. That Sounds About Right

That's what my co-workers with families pay. Just a little more.

Does Hillary's plan not include help for families that can't afford that?

[BlackVelvet04]

12. Of course it does.....

the OP is a liar.

[BlackVelvet04]

11. How sad you would mislead people on an issue so important to

them and their health. I guess you forgot to mention Barack would mandate coverage of parents. I guess he thinks parents are more irresponsible than non-parents.

I guess you also forget the part of Hillary's plan to lower premiums, offer tax rebates and subsidies, expanded Medicare and public plans.

Actually you didn't forget....you chose to lie.

[OzarkDem]

26. Both Clinton and Obama plans do better than this

False information from someone who enjoys their own insurance coverage, but doesn't want others to.

[nonconformist]

13. Under Hillary's plan, the cost would be adjusted to your income

And there would also be subsidies and tax credits to cover the cost.

[UALRBSofL]

32. Thats exactly right

Her plan is income based on how much you earn. Now here is the kicker. Her plan states you have to participate. Not everyone likes to be forced into it. Obama's plan allows you not to participate, but, listened to Dr. Gupta this morning, he said a lot of people would not get insurance which isn't the best way.

[yy4me]

14. I wish one of these political candidates could live in my

economic shoes for one day. Come sit with me at the kitchen table and figure out how to turn my dollar into enough to cover the basics, not the extra stuff. They will never know. I do not take the success away from any of them but in todays dollars and circumstances, is there even one person running for office that had had to juggle the bills?

Please don't tell me that upwards of $1000.00 a month is reasonable for Health Care.

[madrchsod]

20. they feel our pain? ya right

...5700 dollars in wages last year is going to by me really good insurance...

[nolabels]

30. Effing insurance companies are worse than the mob

My employer pays more than $10,000 a year per employee for each of us (it covers the immediate family also). We almost had to go on strike for our new union contract till we came up with some decent compromises. Most everybody's thinking, the company, union and many a individual in this next election cycle is that the government is going to have to do some real work on these bandits

[RC]

16. Under both Hillary and Obama the insurance companies

would still be making out like the bandits they are. GET THE INSURANCE COMPANIES OUT OF THE LOOP!!!

[madrchsod]

18. no shit....

my parents had medicare with an aarp supplemental and paid 0 on their medical bills. never denied a procedure and never had to deal with an insurance company that won`t pay a medical bill for 6 months because it`s their policy to deny claims.

the truth is both plans fail when it comes to actually providing health care to the american people especially to those who can least afford it.

[madrchsod]

17. these plans have to go through the house and senate

by the time they will reach the president`s desk the "plan" will be different than what hillary and obama are telling us now...i`m going out on a limb but i don`t think you are a lier.

[aintitfunny]

19. Not advocating for or against any candidate

at the moment but since I pay, as an owner of a micro business, more than $1200.00 per month now to cover myself and my husband - $644 or less does not sound too shabby. Of course, that is just me and my unique situation.

[HamdenRice]

21. Individualizing the cost encourages people to use the system needlessly

If a person knows he is paying $600+ per month, he is going to have the attitude, gee, I need to get $600 worth of medical care each month. It encourages people to run to the doctor for every little thing.

A single payer, tax-based system does not do this. In the same way that a single payer tax based system does not encourage me to throw out more garbage, or call the cops, or ask for fires to be put out because those services come out of the general revenue.

Both plans are flawed, but Obama's is politically feasible.

[formernaderite]

22. people have gotten used to piddly little co-pay

amounts and this has dragged up the cost of medicine. There are plenty of people who run to the doctor for every small ailment. I self-insure, and pay less than $700 per quarter on insurance for a family. But I also have a large deductible...we obviously pay out of pocket for most visits...still much cheaper than if I had a plan that covered those visits.

[HamdenRice]

24. You point out that we are mixing two different things: health care financing and health insurance

Health care financing is the way individuals and families "save up" for or finance routine, inevitable costs -- like the checkup, dental visits, etc. Basically middle class people have to pay the full amount of this each year. They can have a little deducted and saved for them or they can co pay.

The other is actual insurance. How to pay for the big operation that most people won't have, or the care they need in case of a car accident.

By mixing the two, we make the problem worse.

By choosing a high copay plan, you've chosen to self-finance the routine care, and purchase pure insurance. If that option were readily available many middle class people would choose it.

[formernaderite]

31. how is it not readily available?

And obviously I'm talking about fairly healthy people who don't have ongoing illnesses. I use carefirst blue cross, and these plans can easily be converted quarter to quarter to a lower or higher deductible.

[Cassandra]

23. Considering I now pay $836 a month...

with no end in sight, that doesn't sound as bad to me as you might think.

[OzarkDem]

25. Does your employer pay part of it now? They still will.

If so, they will continue to do so and will get a tax incentive. Most people do get their insurance from employers and would continue to do so. Where did you get the idea that health care reform means employers no longer help pay for insurance? Do you have a link to a plan like that? I didn't think so.

Families will also have a choice between a plan like that one and another similar to Medicare, which would probably be even less expensive.

So before you go off half-cocked and try to sabotage universal health care, do some homework.

[suston96]

33. How do you know?

You cannot take away subsidies because you cannot know what kind of subsidies the plan will allow.

Way too much bullshit discussion without knowing any details. But carry on. That's the way discussion happens here at DU. Few facts and lots and lots of bullshit.

[ramapo]

34. Please let me pay $644 a month!

I would be thrilled as that is less than half of what I pay now (+copay, deductibles, etc)

[Neshanic]

35. I am single and pay 650 big ones. Your point is?