Baucus Says He Will Alter Health Proposal - Provide More Subsidies to Low-Moderate Income Americans

[jefferson_dem]

Key Senator Says He Will Alter Health Proposal
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, said Monday that he would modify his health care bill to provide more generous assistance to moderate-income Americans, to help them buy insurance.

In addition, Mr. Baucus said he would make changes to reduce the impact of a proposed tax on high-end health insurance policies.

Mr. Baucus, Democrat of Montana, disclosed his plans in an interview a day before the committee is to begin meeting to debate and vote on the sweeping legislation, which is intended to remake the nation’s health care system and guarantee insurance for millions of Americans.

In an interview, Mr. Baucus said the changes showed that he had heard the criticism of his bill from colleagues, who asserted that, many people would be required to buy insurance who could not afford it — even with federal subsidies to help defray the cost of premiums.

“Affordability — that, I think, is the primary concern,” Mr. Baucus said. “We want to make sure that if Americans have to buy insurance, it’s affordable.”

Mr. Baucus said he believed that the changes would “help smooth the way for passage” of the bill through the Finance Committee, where it has been criticized from both the left and the right.

The changes could add $28 billion to the 10-year cost of his bill, which was originally estimated at $774 billion by the Congressional Budget Office. The revised bill, though, could still meet President Obama’s stipulation that health care legislation not add to the federal budget deficit.

<SNIP>

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/health/policy/22baucus.html?src=twt&twt=nytimespolitics&pagewanted=print

[Xipe Totec]

1. So, he's promising to give even more money to private insurance companies?

Without a public option, this is just more money down the drain.

[DrDan]

3. same amount to private insurers - just more from the gov't and less from individuals

[Xipe Totec]

6. Without the Public option, costs will keep rising,

so we WILL be giving more to the private insurance companies.

Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow...

But soon, and for the rest of our lives...

[DrDan]

8. that is true where ever we set the subsidy levels

no doubt the private insurers love this plan

[DrDan]

2. it's only a few more tax dollars . . . . and would not reduce insurance company profits

minor alteration

[Ian David]

4. You mean he wants taxpayers to subsidize paying premiums to private insurance companies. n/t

[avaistheone1]

12. Yes AND he want to make it mandatory to do so.

:crazy:

[Cant trust em]

5. The words "public option" don't even appear in the article. nt

[Hansel]

7. Here's my question about the mandate.

When have just gone through one of the biggest recessions in America's history. A great many people are unemployed and have been for a very long time.

Prior to the start of the recession, many many people racked up credit cards, bought houses they couldn't afford, and took out home equity loans on homes that have decreased in value.

Now they have a new job that doesn't offer health insurance because it is too expensive for the small business they work for. So now they have to purchase their own insurance on top of trying to pay off mortgages, home equity loans, and credit cards because they just happen to make over a certain amount of money?

Is the government going to take into account that many people, even though they now are making 3 times the poverty level, are still completely strapped to the gills? That they are caught between a rock and a hard place because of the tightening of the bankruptcy laws?

They need to offer catastrophic insurance at a very minimal cost to anyone who doesn't have health insurance. I bought this insurance for about $30 a month for my kids when they were first in college. My son had to have a mole removed and biopsied and I think it cost about $180 for everything. Not too bad.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Catastrophic insurance is a red herring for people on a limited income

The people with the least resources need the most comprehensive plans with low or no deductibles. The reverse is just a way to run away from the guilt of leaving tens of millions out of the system and to pretend the problems has been fixed. Once you stick a poor person with minimal coverage that they can't afford to use then they can be painted as lazy, stupid, or irresponsible for being sick because we "stepped in and gave a hand" already.

I don't know how many times I've seen people right here at DU talk about basic and catastrophic insurance coverage that ignore the realities of how a person of meager resources struggles to tread water. I've been there. I know what it is like to pay out 15+ percent for insurance but skipped seeking treatment because I couldn't scrape up the co-pays or even afford to miss the time at work to deal with it. Lack of resources leads to unhealthy decisions and bad choices and I don't believe even many liberals would support really doing what is right for people.

The problem here (and probably with Single Payer for some folks, not so much here but in general) is the loathing of someone getting something as good as they do without the resources to support it.
We'd have plenty getting resentful if we did what we need for strapped people and give them plans they can afford that actually cover the expenses they face.

70% still leaves a lot of people far short of anything they can handle and who knows what the co-pays would be but I'm guessing $50+ based on some of the low end crap that I've been offered the past couple of years.

[quantass]

10. LOL...Geez this is what it takes to be a Senator -- His ideas are Amateurish.

Subsidizing doesnt solve the underlying problem of rising healthcare costs since costs will continue to rise regardless of who is covering it...it just means that we the people will be welfaring more to the insurers.

Why oh why are we avoding the OBIOUS solution: Single-Payer, OR Public Option. The US is still scardy-cat over the word single-payer (dumb-dumb-dumb) so Public Option is the ONLY logical solution. And that does NOT include a trigger. If a bill passes this year that doesnt include the PO (sans Trigger) then it will be a big-payday for insurers.

Honestly, i have bought some big pharma, and HMO stocks and have turned a nice profit...i will continue to hold them for some time.

[Autumn]

11. Thats pretty fucking big

of him. What an ass. Just a funnel of taxpayer money to the insurance companies.

[BR_Parkway]

13. Sure seems easier/cheaper to give those eligible for subsidy access to Medicare

and stop all this check writing back and forth.