Affordable mandated private insurance - the BIG lie - A look at the actual numbers on a MA site

[debbierlus]

Over here in Massachusetts, we have government mandated private insurance. Just like the proposed national plan, we have subsidies available to lower & moderate income levels. If you don't meet these levels, you are on your own to buy your own insurance from the state group pools that are suppossed to offer 'affordable' insurance choices.

Well, I just went to the site in Massachusetts that helps uninsured families find and enroll in these plans. I typed in my income was above the 54,936.00 limit for assistance for a family of three and choose to find plans for a family of three of the following ages - 38, 41, & 14.

Here are the results:

Low premium. Most have deductibles and co-payments. Prescription drug coverage included. 4 plans $836.84 - $952.45/mo

- Okay, there is your first option....for between 836.84 - 952.45, you can buy a family plan with high premiums, deductibles, and co-payments. Now if you make 55,000 dollars a year, you and choose this plan, you would be paying 19.63 percent of your income for health insurance that DOES NOT FULLY COVER YOU, CAN DENY CLAIMS, & WILL COST YOU MARKEDLY MORE IF YOU ACTUALLY USE IT....(I used 900 dollars a month as a mid-way figure between the costs presented for purchasing this plan). It may be slightly more or slightly less.

Looking closer, I went into the program and looked at some of the deductibles. One plan the deductible is 2000.00 per family member up to 4,000 dollars total before they pay for hospital stays. Prescription drug copayments could be as high as 180.00 co-pays for some prescriptions. There is a 250.00 dollar fee for emergency room visits. The cheapest plan had a deductible of 35% for hospital stays.

Okay...moving on to the next one....

Moderate co-payments. Some have no deductible. Prescription drug coverage included. 6 plans $1,037.26 - $1,343.15/mo

Okay...so let's first figure out the percentage of GROSS income you will be paying for this plan - again, I choose a mid-way number, 1150.00 from the price range offered. At this price, you are paying a full 25 percent of your income for health insurance and it still has copayments! A quarter of all the hours you work and you STILL are not fully covered. Let's look more closely at one of these plans. First, I found that you had to pay 1,250 dollars a month for a plan with no deductibles (however you still had to pay 500 dollars per hospital admission, so I don't see how that isn't a deductible, but moving on)...Prescription drugs co-payments range from 15 dollars to 1/2 the cost of the drug AFTER the prescription drug deductible is met!

Wow, this is shaping up to be an inspriing model for a national health insurance plan! Alright, on to the 'cadillac' programs...(cadillac meaning that they may actually cover more of the cost, if you need care...maybe because remember, they can still DENY care)

Low co-payments. No deductible. Prescription drug coverage included. 4 plans $1,493.62 - $1,739.38/mo

Whew, I am getting sticker shock at this point. Okay, let's start with the mid-level range for one of these plans, say 1,600 bucks a month. Or, to put it another way, for a mere 34.9 percent of your income you can have nearly full coverage health insurance that still can be denied, but it may cover a lot of if you ever need to use it. Fingers crossed.

Looking at a plan that matches the price I choose, the maximum out of pocket expenses is 2000.00. You STILL HAVE out of pocket expenses with the most expensive plan. Co-payments for meds were as high as 90.00 dollars per script. Durable medical equipment costs were 1,500 dollars before they pay a dime.

There you have it! That is the reality of health insurance costs for a family that makes too much to get government subsidies. And, from what I am reading about the national plan, the income rate for subsidies will be much lower. Also, you might want to know that the MA plan is becoming financially insolvent and they have been paying for the subsidies for purchasing health insurance by cutting benefits to lower income people...the poor sacrificing for the slightly better off. A reality that will be happening to people on Medicare and Medicaid across the country, if this current plan passes.

Here is the link to the site -

https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/

My conclusion: SINGLE PAYER INSURANCE NOW - because nothing else will WORK

[ixion]

1. better part of a thousand bucks a month is NOT 'affordable'

there's more to life than freakin' health insurance.

And I will support no mandated insurance legislation. Ever.

[debbierlus]

2. No, it isn't. And, it may not even cover you and the plans that cost less then a thousand

...you are still in danger of bankruptcy, if you have a serious illness because the deductibles and co-payments are so high.

[dotymed]

101. Most of the medically induced bankruptcies

are by people who have health insurance. They just can't
afford the deductibles,co-pays, being off work, etc... I would
rather have no "health-care" fix, than MANDATES.
That is just another way to make the insurance companies
richer...

[bertman]

40. "Affordable" to a Senator, President, Congresscritter, lobbyist, Insurance company

executive is just a hair different from "affordable" to the average American.

Excellent post, Debbierus. Thank you for some concrete numbers to work with.

Recced.

[Joe Bacon]

75. When Max gets done with us, those premiums will be doubled.

How else is Bill McGuire going to double his salary to $200 million?

[NoUsername]

76. That's it in a nutshell, bertman.

That and the fact that Congresscritters are covered by government insurance so they'll be just fine regardless.

Nice to know the insurance companies that operate in MA are doing so well. That makes about .01% of us I'd guess. IOW, par for the course.

[dotymed]

100. The really SICK thing about that is

these "well-to-do" people do not have to pay for
"health-care." We, the poor and
"middle-class"(poor too) pay for their cadillac
insurance. None of the legislators have to pay into Social
Security either. They have a huge cadillac retirement plan.
like 100% of their pay for life with C.O.L. increases every
year, they "retire" when they no longer have their
government job, they can get these "retirement"
benefits for 50 years, if they live that long.Hundreds of
thousands of dollars EACH, every year. We, the people, must
bring "our" elected "representatives" down
to the level of the average American. Giving them these perks
that we can never acquire is lunacy. Their pay is way more
than average. We must institute publicly financed elections
(it would save us money) and we would get representation, not
the wealthy corporations. We must, non-violently, re-take our
government. Yes, that means taking to the streets, our kids
are worth it. Either that or give in and become even more
slave-like. Is that what you want for your children?

[SammyWinstonJack]

120. Don't they give themselves these perks? They vote their own pay increases too.

Nice eh? :shrug:

[BonnieJW]

125. Legislators do pay into SS.

The implication that they do not is a myth.

[lark]

139. I will not contribute or work for one Dem who votes for co-ops

They will be just like the private ins. in MA, too expensive for anyone who isn't already rich. That is a fig leaf to cover up the real motive - more money for the ins. co's and screw everyone else. The Repugs must be laughing themselves silly. This will be such a bad move it could be AGES before Dems recover from the people's anger at their health care costs exploding and no more care, safety or security than they had before. Come on, Dems! Get a grip, quit boot licking corporatists and grow some spine!!

[debbierlus]

3. Who the hell unrecommended this?

There must be health insurance company trolls on this board.

[ixion]

4. rec'd

to offset the trolls. :hi:

[debbierlus]

5. Thanks, people need to know the numbers - the term affordable

...that is used in conjunction with these plans would make one thing that they are actually 'affordable'.

That has been a huge problem with this 'debate'. Without real numbers, it is tough to get people to understand what the reality of the legislation will be!

[enlightenment]

6. Thank you for posting.

Good luck with convincing the rosy-colored glasses crew.

[debbierlus]

7. This is not the time for our vision to be obscured

...even with the rose colored glasses, I myself like to don on occassion when reality gets too rough.

[enlightenment]

9. I agree.

But those lenses seem to be permanently welded to the eyeballs of many on DU.

[pscot]

17. We have mice

They leave their little turds all over the board.

[dreadnought54321]

24. They are the same people

that say health care is costly because poor people dont pay their fair share. Bullshit. Poor people fucking die and go bankrupt. They dont cost people a cent. What costs people is for-profit vulture insurance and for-profit hospital chains with 40% administrative overhead and multi millionare CEO's. Thats why health care is expensive.

[truedelphi]

28. As far as I am concerned, it can not be said often enough:

To quote your post:

Poor people fucking die and go bankrupt. They don't cost people a cent. What costs people is for-profit vulture insurance and for-profit hospital chains with 40% administrative overhead and multi- millionare CEO's. Thats why health care is expensive.

Only correction I would make is to point out that some of those CEO's are billionaires!

[Usrename]

67. Poor people fucking die and go bankrupt.

Poor people fucking die and go bankrupt. They don't cost people a cent. What costs people is for-profit vulture insurance and for-profit hospital chains with 40% administrative overhead and multi- millionare/billionare CEO's. Thats why health care is expensive.

[truedelphi]

86. Hey there...

:toast:

[TheKentuckian]

90. No argument that overhead and profit are the big chunk

but it is false that uncovered and/or under-covered people "don't cost people a cent". Under the current system every resource and everyone's time cost something. If someone goes to the ER or even to a clinic some resource will be used to triage and treat them. That money for the doctors, nurses, tests, medicine, and whatever else still moves from somewhere to the outstretched hands or they are deprived of compensation and that means it costs them.

We have a monetary system. I'm not a big fan but it can't be pretended away.

[truedelphi]

168. Okay, but here is another chunk of reality right back at you

People who cannot afford quality care end up on the dole, and on food stamps and on County paid medical programs. Which somebody has to pay for (I am assuming.)

In my case, my pre-existing condition that more or less forbids that employers hire me is my age. If they hire me, the moment that I am on their payroll, then KA-BOOM! their insurance premium escalataes.

So I now cost the government a minimum of $ 600 a month. Whereas before I was over 55, I contributed to the government through a little known mechanism called payroll taxes.

[Enthusiast]

94. Plus 1, dreadnought! nt

[fasttense]

107. Welcome to DU, and well said.

It can NOT be repeated often enough (with some minor editing):

Poor people fucking die and go bankrupt. They don't cost anyone one red cent. What costs people is for-profit vulture insurance and for-profit hospital chains with 40% administrative overhead and multi millionaire CEO's. Thats why health care is expensive.

[Enthusiast]

93. There are trolls of every stripe on DU.

Keep your ears and eyes open for them. They try to skew the discussion and cause distractions.

[endarkenment]

110. relax - as of right now your post is +166.

the rec/unrec system works just fine, even if at a point in time a handful of idiots can have an effect, over time that effect disappears.

[Hannah Bell]

8. kick

[debbierlus]

12. :)

Shameless self kick for an important post.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

124. You self kick this thread all you want...And feel no shame.

Great post!

and btw, KICK!

[tnlefty]

10. K & R!

Thanks for the info. Affordable to one person is out of reach for another, and all of it goes to the blood suckers who've been ripping people off already.

[debbierlus]

16. Not one dime should go to profit above actual health care

Not one penny.

[edc]

53. True

But that will not happen. It has become increasingly self-evident that the federal government is owned by degenerate financial interests, and that it is as incapable of providing for the common welfare as it is of disenthralling itself from its own bondage.

[Enthusiast]

95. But but but, what

about their free money? They must get their free money!

[tnlefty]

158. I hear ya! I so wanted to be in Nashville today.

The MadAsHellDocs were there today and I couldn't work out getting my boys home from school so I couldn't get there, but I was there in spirit. I did see a clip on Ed's show and he mentioned that they were in TN today.

[WCGreen]

11. So betwen a shitty mid priced acount and your taxes, you would have

less than 50% of you income for everything else...

[debbierlus]

13. Yep...all to preserve the billion dollar profts to CEOs & shareholders

And, they thank you very much - American Health Care Consumer!

[truedelphi]

30. You are sorta saying that like it's a bad thing

Billion dollar profits to the CEO's.

I mean there has to be a silver lining to that black cloud somewhere, right?




Oh yeah, it is the fact that with those kind of salaries, they can afford an entire stable of lobbyists!!

[lark]

140. *They* also thank their bought and sold senators of both parties

They made a great investment and Blue Dogs and Repugs are making it pay off grandly.

[dotymed]

102. And all of the other Industrialized nations

pay far less than that and have complete, universal
health-care. France's per night hospital stays just increased
to 29 euros a night....if you can afford it. Our co-pays for a
Dr. visit will be more than that even if you can't afford it.
America has the most expensive "health-care" in the
world. We are ranked #37 in care...wow.For-profit health-care
is OBVIOUSLY a scheme. Health-care is a right, not a
privilege.

[pecwae]

14. knr. nt

[glitch]

15. Excellent post debbierlus, thanks. K & R nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

18. I am still struggling with the legality about mandating people purchase

from a private enterprise (or selection of them). I can choose not to drive, I can't choose not to breathe.

Was there ever a legal challenge mounted in MA about this?

[Mark D.]

78. It Is Unconstitutional

Something to try and get your regressive 'friends' going, if they really care about the Constitution (that's never the real motivation for most of them, you know it's usually bullshit for their self-interest, or the one thing they care too much about, how to screw the needy and pay as little tax to help them as possible.

Here goes:

I live in Mass too, and it hit me like a brick recently. The money 'fined' to those who don't 'participate' (get insurance) here goes to private insurers at least partially. What this is really is simple. Max Baucus wants to try it nationally, and it's bullshit, and it's Unconstitutional, it's a historic precedent in ways.

For the first time, possibly in our history, on a major scale, the idea is to force private citizens to give their money to a private corporation. Understandable with auto insurance. Folks should have it when driving, and if you don't like it, don't drive. I'm okay with that, there is a way out of that 'requirement'.

For this, there is not. Every citizen is mandated. You could live in a shed in your neighbors back yard, or your car, it won't matter, you MUST pay for insurance or the penalty (that again, largely goes to private companies). Even the serfs in ancient kingdoms didn't have that kind of requirement set in stone.

Any of our founding fathers would roll in their graves at this idea. While a single-payer system, designed to benefit citizens, to lower costs to citizens, to help them live (life) and do okay (pursuit of happiness) while taking power from an oppressor (insurers) would be something I think they'd smile upon in concept.

I have made this point with a not-so-extreme Libertarian friend who actually agreed with me on that point (though he still isn't totally sold on single-payer, I'm working on it, I've at least got him to see the validity of it, stuff he didn't know about, sold to him in a way that resonates with Libertarian viewpoints).

[hughee99]

89. I wonder if this would get a challenge on religious grounds, too...

As there are some religious sects that do not allow for "modern medicine". Essentially, these people would be force to pay a private corporation for a service that their religion doesn't permit them to use.

[renate]

115. that's a really good question

It'll be interesting to see whether someone picks up on this idea and uses it in a legal challenge to the requirement.

[gorfle]

137. Mandated insurance is a tax, plain and simple.

Mandated insurance is just going to be another federal tax, plain and simple. Everyone who makes over 50K a year or so (per the Mass. example) is going to have to foot the entire bill themselves.

Basically mandated insurance means that every American making more than about $50K a year is going to get to pay $1000 a month for their mandatory health care tax. If you make less than $50K a year you will get some federal tax credits to help defray the cost.

You wondered how this health care plan was going to get paid for? Well now you know. Bend over and open up your wallets.

[twitomy]

163. Well then I guess that explains the bumper sticker i saw:

"Bend over; here comes the "Change""

Too bad it seems to be true.

Depressing, really depressing....:(

[GodlyDemocrat]

19. RomneyCare is a failure

[hfojvt]

20. I was trying to find out what the subsidies are

Although some parts of your example sorta bother me. Are you, for example, saying that you make more than $55,000 a year but cannot afford health insurance?

As near as I can figure from the site, the state of Mass figures that you can only afford $364 a month if you make between $54,937 and $72,800 and have children. They also say that if you live in Area 1 that the minimum cost for insurance is $845 a month, and thus you would not be subjected to penalties.

It's pretty complicated though. I am not gonna try to figure out all the what-ifs and thresholds of the Massachusetts plan.

According to their charts, I cannot afford to spend anything on insurance at my income level. The truth is that I spend about 20% of my income on health insurance. But then again, I don't live in Mass, so I don't know if I could do the same thing if I was living in Middleboro or Wheelwright.

[ProSense]

27. Correct,

but let's ignore this.

[debbierlus]

29. I am stating the percentage of income that a family of three would be required to spend

For a full coverage health care plan...(and full coverage plans rarely provide full coverage) - this is based on the plan calculator linked at the bottom of the page.

No, many families of three would not be able to afford a full coverage plan. Many younger people opt for the catastophic coverage (which sucks, but that is another post) instead of getting full coverage, not because they don't want it, it is because they can't afford it. Some just pay the fine.

Don't forget, these calculations are based on gross income levels. And, that is for the bottom level coverage with high co pays and deductibles.

These rates are ridiculous and the amount would strap families to the point of giving up saving for college or even meeting basic living expenses. And, the fact is that there is no reason that families should have to bear such a heavy burden for health insurance. We have a system that takes over a quarter of its health care dollars and hands it over to Wall Street and CEOs. That is immoral. It is a classic example of the poor and working class bearing the burden for the rich and sacrificing their work and lives for the profit of the wealth.

[juno jones]

149. Add into that the probability of means testing for the poorest to qualify for all those cushy breaks

some here are touting without numbers. ie: "Don't worry, low-income folk will be subsidized" without a thought to what that really means.

The poor could have no savings for emergency or retirement. The poor could not own property, vehicles etc worth more than a rather low and arbitrary amount. And most of the poor won't qualify because they will all make $5 more than the cutoffs. Same as it always was.

That is why I advocate a program that covers the basics on a universal level. Contrary to the *OMG welfare queen* posturing of some on this board as regards scary uninsured people, many of us pay our bills for doctors and hospitals and get worse service (if we can get in anywhere but a 24-7 clinic) and charged more because we're making up the profit lost when they negotiate all those cheaper terms for the insured. We also pay full boat for our meds. One of mine is $187.00. It's OTC and generic in Canada and far cheaper.

Thanks for this post, I've wanted to respond all day, but the construction down the street interrupted our power. With me in mid-tirade, too. :) The numbers are especially welcome. There's been little of that from the mandate camp for over a year now since Hilary let the cat slip from the bag.

:hi:

[surrealAmerican]

21. Thanks for this post.

It's useful to have the actual numbers for insurance cost.

If it were truly affordable, and was not subject to co-pays and deductibles, the case for mandated private insurance might make sense. As it stands, a mandate won't work.

[Feron]

22. Wow. The cheapest plan for my age group..

is twice what I'm paying for now in La.. And I don't even know how much longer I can afford that.

If I lived in Massachusetts, it would be more cost effective to be uninsured and pay the fine. One of the plans had 35% co-insurance after the deductible was met. Either way, a serious illness is going to ruin you financially.

[pscot]

23. Here's how it can and should work

I'm on medicare, with a supplemental through my postal retirement. I pay about $160 per month. I have no co-pays, no deductibles except for drugs, and no limits. I see my doctor whenever I like. If I need specialty care it's pretty much a gimme. I've been hospitalized 3 times in the last year. At one point I spent 10 days in a critical care unit in the best hospital in the state. Total cost, zero, nil, nada. My coverage costs me about $1800 a year. Drugs run about $600. This is the same coverage every congressman and senator has. It should be available to every American. The ones who can't pay should be subsidized. This isn't rocket science. All they have to do is provide everyone with the same coverage they and every other federal employee have.

[debbierlus]

32. I recall a certain Presidential candidate running on that platform, but for the life of me, I don't

know where he went....

[truedelphi]

36. Same here. I even asked for some help

Regarding that point

http://tinyurl.com/l6sxaq

[kath]

45. Gee, who the heck IS that guy??

:-(

[Faryn Balyncd]

25. K&R - & the RW is trying to RESCIND Medicare universality as well by judicial challenge & HR 3356 as

...well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6591931&mesg_id=6591931

They want to turn Medicare into an indigent, second class system by destroying universality, "allowing" people to "opt out" of Medicare, which will lead to providers telling patients they need to opt out in order to get care.

They know that if Medicare is made not universal, providers will choose to not participate in massive numbers.





(K&R)

[debbierlus]

31. Yep. You are right. That is why it is so important we fight back on this issue

We need single payer, or in the absence of that - a TRUE public option where everyone can choose to enroll and one that is not deliberately weakened to benefit health insurance corporations and their profits.

[ProSense]

26. Well, it's a good thing Obama's plan has

nothing to do with Massachusetts'.

[truedelphi]

34. And the President's plan is ....

I watched President Obama at several of the vigilante, er Town Hall meeting gatherings this summer, and even he didn't know what was in the plan that he'd go for. I do remember him backing down when queried about the Public Option "It's not necessarily a part of what will be offered" or something to that tune.

And in the end, If Matt Taibbi is to believed, everything from the Senate has to come out of Max Baucus' committee.

[inna]

33. this is just INSANE! wake up people, this is OURAGEOUS!!

We need Universal Health Care, funded by taxation, not this government-mandated RACKET for and by the profiteers, that is going to be be disastrous for the struggling middle class.

This "health reform" (more like, insurance bailout) is a total charade.


:argh:

[debbierlus]

37. Omg. You threw your computer, Inna.

I will join you...

:argh:

[BlueDemKev]

57. Wow....

Those are scary numbers! It appears that the situation remains that unless you are employed with a large organization which pays most of your health insurance premiums, you're in trouble because to get decent health insurance you have to pay the whole premium yourself.

A couple questions...are these the only options (the ones listed on the government website?) Or are these just suggestions? One can go out and buy cheap individual plans which cover a limited amount, but would such a plan meet Massachusetts' standards? Are people in Mass. allowed to purchase out-of-state insurance? (I gather the answer is no). Going across state lines would help bring premiums down as there would be greater competition; it would also benefit those who live in rural states who don't have much choice when it comes to buying insurance.

I am still not convinced that a single-payer system is the best solution. Nearly all of insurance company's revenue do go to paying claims (the income statements of publicly-traded insurance companies are available to the public). With the cost of health care so high, the federal government would still have to bring in enough tax revenue to cover the expenses of the health fund.

[Enthusiast]

96. If you are still not convinced

then you had better find a non-insurance industry source of information.

[BlueDemKev]

129. Commonwealth Choice/Care

Okay, I did some homework this morning. I studied the Mass. Health Connector website and I also called both CW Choice and CW Care and spoke to representatives from both.

First off, if a person is enrolled in Commonwealth CHOICE (meaning their income is above 300% of the FPL), and he/she suddenly loses their job (and thus cannot pay their monthly premiums), that person IMMEDIATELY becomes eligible for Commonwealth CARE, who's premiums are MUCH lower and Commonwealth CARE does NOT exclude applicants with pre-existing conditions. (Not sure what CW CHOICE's policy is on Pre-Existing Conditions, but I've emailed that question to them).

As for Commonwealth CHOICE, the plans offered on the Mass. Connector website are not the only plans available which meet the state's standards. Everyone is free to shop around for a plan which they like and the insurance carrier should be able to tell you immediately if a certain plan complies with Massachusetts' standards.

CHOICE's plans are operated by for-profit insurance carriers, which is unfortunate, but this is all the more reason why the federal government needs to establish non-profit co-ops which would be controlled by its members. This would help push premiums down.

The CHOICE plans are expensive, but not unreasonably so. The plan I currently have thru my employer (Cigna Open Access Plus) charges a monthly premium of $1,320.00/mo. I pay about one-third of it, but if I lost my job and had to go on COBRA, I'd have to pay the entire amount. The benefits of Fallon Community Health Plan, which is available thru CW CHOICE, nearly match Cignas-OAP's. FCHP charges a monthly premium of $782.00, and that covers a family of four. Yes, that is high, but compared to $1,350.00 it's very reasonable. Obviously, it is still more advantageous to be covered under a employer's plan which pays most of their employee's premiums.

The real problem is not the fact that these insurance companies operate for profit (most insurance companies profit margins have been well under 10% for the past several years). The problem is the cost of health care itself.

Getting health care costs down will take probably 15 to 20 years. Obama's plan would establish independent commissions to study health care expenses, etc. We need to get this work started immediately.

[debbierlus]

154. These are the STATES 'affordable' group insurance rates....

And, the alternative to a fine for not buying into a full payer system is buying a catastrophic coverage policy (with most not providing nearly enough coverage for a actual catastrophe).

The fear with going across state lines is that the insurance companies would not have enough (or any!) providers in the out of state networks to provide actual care. This proposal is actually opening a door for private insurance companies to scam people out of real coverage by offering a cheaper policy that will not be accepted by providers in their home states. Not a good road to go down.

The sensical thing to do is reduce costs by removing third party insurers that have been shown through the Medicare model to provide administration of the insurance programs at 100% higher costs then the government. I am not stating that a government insurance program is the only component of health reform, but it is the most central and important one, if we are to have true univeral and accessible coverage.

[LAGranny]

35. Single payer, government tax payer paid, health care for all

We simply have to bite the bullet and realize, as Americans,
that even a "public option" still keeps the
"For Profit" health care murderers in the loop. Call
me a "socialist" but if I could move to a Country
like Great Britian, Germany or even Cuba, that provides health
care for all of their citizens, not as a privilege, but as a
RIGHT, I would.

[debbierlus]

39. It will come, we just have to push HARD

[inna]

83. it's a question of WHEN, not a question of IF. (wrt Universal Health Care)

i just KNOW it in my heart (or whatever organs...)



after all, we're the only (so-called) democracy in the world that does not provide UHC to all of its citizens, as a right.

[leftstreet]

91. Apparently not until we bail out the insurance industry

x(

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

38. This true blue never voted for a R Democrat really truly

believes that if the reform plan that passes includes a mandate that everyone must buy health insurance from the for profit companies, subsidized or not, we (meaning the Dem's) will suffer losses in 2010 and beyond like they can't imagine now, but if we (meaning the Dem's) raise the bar, and at least put universal single payer care on the table, quite the opposite will happen.

And I find the "how will we pay" argument tiresome. We, as a nation, the public and the business, surely pay enough in premiums now to more than pay for it. Don't ask me to cite a link, because I can't, but it is one of those who you going to believe things, your bank balance and checkbook register or what the talking heads tell you.

[undergroundpanther]

41. I'm poor

And I have plenty of problems.I need my meds to function physically and emotionally or I am fucked. I have some serious issues like,PSTD,depression,Peripheral neuropathy,bone spurs the pain this causes sometimes is so bad I think of killing myself,just to make it stop.And..I got one big honking bone spur in my throat. If I get a throat infection like strep,I have to go to the doctor, I can't let my throat swell up too much because not only can I not swallow,the spur on my neck facing in-wards scrapes the back of my esophagus and if it scrapes deep enough to make it bleed in the wrong place,I could drown in my own blood.I'd have minutes or less to live.

So I cross my fingers every time I get a sore throat. Without MA death for me would be just a matter of the right infection untreated in time. If MA goes I am so fucked. But than again haven't the rich always wanted to kill the poor? Just do it in a way that people never connect the dots and never slip out of denial, and keep the invisible bars of control installed from a young age in their minds so they dare not challenge the corporation or the rich and their abuse of 99% of humanity.
Guess I lost out on the which family will I be born into lottery.I never asked to be here,and with the way things are going I find less and less reasons to stay

I admit it,I do hate the rich.I resent the FUCK out of them.I hate Ceo's and their golden parachute rewards for failure.I hate those who have so much extra they can afford to buy shit like solid gold rocking horses for their bratty kids ,or, own their own islands.

[Roland99]

42. Time to buy ins. company stock.

:-(

[dflprincess]

43. Thank you for this debbierlus

You should email it to newspapers around the country as a guest editorial. The Minneapolis Star Tribune had a huge article today that really sugar coated the Massachusetts plan.

[pattmarty]

44. Thx for the info. It sure is eye opening especially for someone................

..........like myself that tries to keep track of the bills now out there. What I am thinking the longer this goes on is we are going to get a "Republican" plan without actually ANY Republicans voting for it, just Democrats. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!

[kath]

46. Thanks so much for this thread. What they call "affordable" is a Total. Freakin'. Joke.

:banghead: :banghead:

:argh:

[glowing]

47. Do you think its time we revolt.. All who are currently healthy, drop our coverage completely?

If most of us drop our plans, they won't have money and they will be begging us to take them back. Its the larger pool combined that the ins. co's need to keep their numbers in the profit range. We are paying them for nothing. If we actually get sick, they drop us, threaten our employers to fire us, cap us out.. I say those that are healthy enough to, just dump them. Have an insurance card burning like the draft burnings. Show up in D.C. and burn your Ins. card. Start overwhelming medicare offices and demanding to be signed up now, not when your 65. Maybe its time we stop asking and start demanding.

[Mark D.]

80. Good Idea, However...

We will be the ones most hurt by that. Not enough would ever join the bandwagon.
That is, unless we got the law on our side and forced Single Payer to be LAW...

Constitutionality:
1) Dennis Kucinich partially referenced this. The Constitution says we've the right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.
2) Uninsured people who are sick, under-insured/insured who are and are denied coverage are denied these inalienable rights.
3) Wouldn't that make for-profit insurance unconstitutional. Someone should challenge that. I mean to the S.C.O.T.U.S.

Hippocratic Oaths:
1) Doctors, and hospitals, have a 'Hippocratic Oath' to do no harm. By association, so should pharmacies, private or not.
2) When they deny chemo patients medicine based on ability to pay, they violate this oath, as they do serious harm.
3) When they take a patient who can't pay to court, and foreclose on their home, they do harm, and violate again.
4) Based on this, they should be forbidden to engage in medicine upon any such denial or collection activity.

I'm not joking. There's a legal case to be made in both of the above. I don't know much about law beyond what you can see here &
don't have resources or time to devote to it. Maybe another here can. Why not? 'Birthers' have taken less valid issues to court.

If any major precedent is set, any major headway made, in the above two cases, the only real option to fix the problem, which to
now has been the 'have-nots' problem, but would then be the 'have-mores' problem (so it will matter more) would be Single-Payer.

Make it viral. Why not. Next regressive you hear 'patriotically' referring to the Constitution to defend their Libertarian view.
Surprise them with these truths. We're in extreme times, and extreme measures like these certainly couldn't hurt the cause now.

[glowing]

106. Not a bad idea to try. Try any and all ways to get what we need.

[debbierlus]

156. Yes. It it exactly that time. But, it would take enough of us to act at once

And, it will take some leadership, organization, and courage to get people to join in on such an act. We could bring down the whole corporate system through this type of action.

And, we SHOULD do it. The people must take control of their government again.

[slipslidingaway]

48. President Obama said less than 5% will be enrolled in the...

public option, actually CBO stated just over 3%, but the public option plan is what people are counting on to keep the insurance companies honest and bring down costs.

:shrug:

Thanks for posting the numbers!

[kath]

51. It's all such a sellout - there is no STRONG public option on the table. It's non-reform "reform",

and a HUGE bonanza for the insurance companies.

[slipslidingaway]

58. Agreed ! Would we support this if it was proposed by the other Party?

If they told us that a PO with just over 3% will keep the insurance companies honest would we believe them?

:(

[debbierlus]

65. Of course not...

I actually think the Republican delay tactics will blow up in their face. It is taking people a little while to understand what is really going on and understand what the democratic leadership is actually selling- and the more they learn, the angrier they get...and we need to channel that anger into action and a rallying cry for real reform.

SINGLE PAYER!

[slipslidingaway]

79. It is one thing to rally around an idea, another to see the details...

emerge with a much weaker plan.

Hopefully more people will come around and support a national, not for profit system such as single-payer.

[debbierlus]

151. This discussion has been very hard to have here on DU

...because pointing out that Obama is championing a plan that benefits the insurance companies profits WAY more then people, it is met with heavy resistance.

But, as I always say

Policy over politican.

[followthemoney]

49. Is it OK to hate a government that would abuse the vulnerable...

and channel money from the most desperate to the wealthiest?

Is it OK to hate them for even proposing this scam?

Is it OK to hate them yet?

I'm getting pretty tired of the social pressure of having to think these parasites are somehow looking out for my best interests.

[slipslidingaway]

50. Health Reform Lessons from Massachusetts - The canary in the coal mine

By Trudy Lieberman

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/health_reform_lessons_from_mas_5.php

"...The draft bills from the House and the Senate Finance Committee contain many parallels with the Massachusetts law. The y envision making all Americans buy health insurance, and call for penalties if they don’t comply. So we offer a few questions about the Massachusetts law that the press should keep in mind as it starts to report on the national push to copy the Bay State.

Is the state pulling back on the mandate? While the number of uninsured in Massachusetts is lower than other states, the latest rise suggests either that the state is exempting more people from the mandate or that more are taking the tax penalty. The maximum penalty is about $1000 per person, which may be less expensive than buying a policy. In 2007, 60,000 people paid the penalty. The state’s Department of Revenue will release new numbers in early October, but the issue of affordability looms large—perhaps the biggest side effect of reform.

Ironically, as Congress works to compel people to buy insurance, Massachusetts may be whittling away at the mandate and its penalties. In January, it lengthened the time that residents can be without insurance and escape the penalty from sixty-three days to ninety days...

...After hearing from older readers who complained they were having a tough time with the mandate because they could not afford a policy, Lazar reported on the problems with age rating. Massachusetts may require insurers to cover the sick, but it doesn’t force them to sell affordable policies. Rates for an older person can be twice as much as that for a younger person, requiring them to pay several hundred dollars more.

To fit premiums into tight budgets, some residents have purchased policies with less coverage and more out-of-pocket costs. Some forty-two percent of people buying their policies through the Connector’s shopping service choose policies that generally require more cost sharing. Another irony: State data show that as residents get older they choose cheaper, less comprehensive plans just when they need medical care the most..."

[G_j]

52. You ought to distribute this more widely, sent it our reps, to Obama

get it published. send it KO, Rachel, Ed, etc. etc..
thanks!

:applause:

[grahamhgreen]

147. PLEASE PIN THIS TO THE TOP OF THE DU HOMEPAGE!

[debbierlus]

167. Obama already knows this - he once was a single payer advocate

He isn't pushing bad legislation because he is naive. He is pushing it because he is scared that taking on the corporations will
result in such a huge outpouring of corporate dollars to the Republicans that the dems will lose big in 2010 & he will lose big in 2012.

It is really sad because he is wrong. People really want change, and they would have rallied huge around the democrat party, if they choose to truly battle for the people.

My question to them: Why do you want to retain power, if the cost is selling out to corporations and promoting their agenda as change? Why even bother to be in office?

So, what if you lose? You have already lost, if this is the price you have to pay.

There really is no excuse for not fighting. Obama has utterly wasted a once in a lifetime opportunity to renew a progressive populist democratic party.

It is a crying shame.

[BlueJac]

54. People who dont buy their perscriptions from Costco are crazy.....

I pay 1/3 of what I used to pay without the aid of insurance, same for my wife.


I hope this helps some people here.

[grahamhgreen]

148. Try Canada - it's even cheaper!

[ezdidit]

55. With MA in the hole for $160 million

reducing reimbursements to hospitals will put them in jeopardy.

As David U.Himmelstein noted in April, here: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/april/testimony_of_david_u.php

"...While reforms that maintain a major role for private insurers may seem politically expedient,
they are economically and medically nonsensical."

[Greyhound]

56. K&T for the familiar smell of BOHICA..

Are we really stupid enough to re-elect people that would do this to us?

[Kermitt Gribble]

59. Excellent post!!! K&R! n/t

[StreetKnowledge]

60. $1,740 a month?

Bloody hell. No wonder America has tens of millions of uninsured. Yikes.

[debbierlus]

61. For one of those 'cadillac plans' that actually cover you...

Fancy plan - pays for your actual care....(well, maybe, depending on if they can find a loop hole to get out of it, or make one up)

[autorank]

62. A fine contribution to the debate. k*r

MA has reached the limit. So ask yourselves, if you're not in the poverty category or 300% of poverty ($10k a year individual; $50k a year, family of four), what relief will you get?

The only group with access to the exchange, 4 years out, if offered to "those without insurance," the only group with access to the insurance "exchange." ead the speech if you doubt me. "This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right." Snip "But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance."

So the "exchange" will have no impact on those with insurance. It will come in four years. The exchange, as a leveler of prices, will not be available for those currently with insurance.

There is a promise for people who lose insurance and can't get insured again due to a pre existing condition. It sounds like a catastrophic insurance benefit from the government, which is good. But wasn't one of the pieces of the plan to stop insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre existing conditions. Strange.

[Sunnyshine]

63. FU@K!

K&R - Single payer now! (Shame to those who support corporate profits as more important than the well being of citizens.)

[defendandprotect]

64. Baucus should be joining his insurance buddies now -- drive him out of Congress!!!

We should target him and anyone else trying to arrange such plum pickings for
the insurance/health care industry!!!

We already went through this giveaway game with Medicare/pharma --

Outrageous!

And . . . we have to realize if they get away with this . . .
they will be back destroying Medicare and Social Security --

[defendandprotect]

66. BOUNCE BAUCUS ... and did you happen to see Rachel/Jane Hamsher/Firedog Lake?

She's after the Repugs who aren't supporting health care --

where the people of the district/state want single payer --

Great idea -- get these people out of Congress!

[truedelphi]

73. The flipping frog likes him that idea too --

:bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce: Baucus :bounce:

[grahamhgreen]

143. Bounce the Baucus Boondoggle.

[flvegan]

68. Happy to be Rec #97.

Good post.

[AzDar]

69. K & R

:kick:

[JDPriestly]

70. The focus should be health care insurance cost reduction

and prohibitions on discrimination due to pre-existing conditions or age. Also, no arbitrary denial of coverage. (That's why you need panels of doctors to decide on best medical practices -- to stop the arbitrary denials of coverage for necessary services.) Only single payer insurance can meet all of these criteria.

Private insurance companies have had their chance. They could have done a good job -- if they had kept their customers' interests in mind. But they squandered the money their customers entrusted to them. They forgot that that money was intended to be spent on health care -- not on their executives' cushy lifestyles or on the ad agencies they hire to lure customers or worse yet on lobbyists.

I support free enterprise, but when private companies act like gangsters and charge the rates that you describe, then free enterprise is not working. Somebody is cheating. The public option may or may not provide enough competition to discourage the cheating. If we had single payer, we could complain to our congressmembers if we were unhappy. (My representative has helped us deal with the post office and did a good job on it.)

Medical care with all the equipment, the well trained doctors and other medical personnel and the effective pharmaceuticals will never be extremely cheap. But the middle layer of greedy insurance companies that stands between Americans and their health care providers is making it unaffordable.

Doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath and their ethical rules to treat all patients well: Do no harm. Insurance companies are not bound by the doctor's ethics, yet we allow them to stand between our doctors and us, the patients.

Further, unlike doctors and lawyers, insurance companies do not owe their customers a duty of trust -- a fiduciary duty. What is more, thanks to a Scalia decision on ERISA law way back when, if your insurance company contracts with your employer -- you can only sue for equitable damages -- to get the care you should have gotten -- if you are denied care you paid for. This gives insurance companies a free pass to decide on your health care in their self-interest, not in your interest. And, as many have learned the hard way, the self-interest of insurance companies can cost lives.

Americans deserve better.

Let's give single payer a try. If we don't like it, we can privatize it. In this country, we don't have to stick with something we don't like. That works both ways. If we don't like how private insurance companies are treating us, we can push them out. That is the meaning of freedom -- having the freedom to choose and to change what does not work.

Those who oppose single payer generally oppose it because they are true believers in a rigid economic theory. They need to free themselves from their obsession with a narrow ideology.

America is a nation of pragmatists, not a nation of true believers in some fanatical economic theory. The capitalist organization of our society arises out of our pragmatism not out of blind devotion to the idea of free markets. The pragmatic thing to do -- the American thing to do -- is to try out single payer. That is what we should do. If it doesn't work, we can privatize it. It's that simple.

[slipslidingaway]

84. Agreed and if we had SP, we would all be in this together, including Congress...

SP would be one voice for the best system, instead they keep us divided into separate groups.

[chill_wind]

71. Nothing like the plain ugly facts. K & R.

eom

[janet118]

72. Compare these numbers to what Mass. legislators pay . . .

Mass. legislators receive $61,439 - a raise of 32%. That figure does not include bonus pay, travel pay, parking allotments, and $7,200 for "general expenses." For health insurance, their family plans have monthly premiums that range from $971 to $1786 and individual plans with premiums from $404 to $755. Depending on their date of election, legislators pay only 20 to 25 percent of those premiums, the rest of the tab (the other 75 to 80 percent) is picked up by us, Mass. taxpayers.

Oh yeah, they do have to pay extra for vision/dental. Those plans cost between $79 and $111 monthly for families and $25 and $36 for individuals. The legislators pay only 15% for these plans, the state pays the other 85%. I wish I could get that deal.

Are these are the people who are supposed to understand what the rest of us are going through? I don't think so.

Every time I hear Kerry bragging about the Massachusetts plan, I want to puke. A recent survey in the state shows that more and more middle class and self-employed residents are avoiding regular doctor visits and tests because of high co-pays and deductibles. Not only that - rates are going up. The Mass. plan does not work and anyone who says it does is lying.

I feel like we are mere peasants begging for crumbs from the elected "royalty" in Congress. Who scold us for "not taking responsibility for ourselves" and for "wanting the government to take care of us." All the while those exalted ones are working extra hard to please their corporate contributors, we are paying for their gold standard health care. We need to cut their benefits, maybe make them pay some of those high deductibles and co-pays that we do, maybe make them pay 40 or 50 percent of their premiums, maybe make them form a co-op, maybe they can use their corporate contributions to pay for their insurance. They won't get a clue about what we are going through out here in "real" America until they and their families have to deal with the kind of things we do. Only then, they will understand the urgent need to get us some relief.

[pundaint]

98. Kerry has gone over to the corporate side.

I have spoken to at least 20 different Congressional offices regarding Health Insurance, and Kerry's is the only one where I have experienced only arrogance or ignorance. I can't wait to vote for the other guy if he runs again. He is on the finance committee and is willing to stand by counting his insurance and finance industry contributions while we are sold out.

[ProSense]

138. Oh BS!

Kerry at town hall meeting: This is why the public option is so important. (updated)

Kerry is one of only a few Senators who answered yes to all questions on public option questionnaire

Kerry on Baucus' bill: "it’s not going to be the bill that we’re going to vote"

Kerry, Rockefeller working on changes to Baucus' bill; voting to begin on Tuesday

[The_Casual_Observer]

74. This reminds me of that cobra shit that is offered when you lose your job.

Cobra is so expensive that you couldn't possibly pay for it if you lost your job.

They want 40% of your gross income for health insurance. Is the fire dept or other government agency hiring? It's the only way to survive in a "market driven economy"

[cannabis_flower]

77. A lot of families in this situation...

will be saying, "How much is the penalty for no insurance?, OK, I will go without and pay as I go"

[slipslidingaway]

81. Health Reform Lessons from Massachusetts, Part V - Finding affordable health insurance

Finding affordable health insurance

By Trudy Lieberman

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/health_reform_lessons_from_mas_4.php

"...The Abrams’s income, about $63,000 per year, was a bit too high to qualify for subsidized coverage when the law took effect. (The cutoff for state help was just over $60,000.) The state’s affordability schedule indicated that families with annual incomes of $63,000 a year should have been able to spend up to $352 a month on premiums. But Frontline reported that when the Abrams’s searched the state web site, the cheapest monthly premium available for them through the Connector cost $800. They finally choose a policy costing around $1100, nearly twice the family’s mortgage and three times its food budget. Eventually Alison got a job with benefits...

...Campaign Desk used the Web site to try and find policies available for a family of four living in Pittsfield, a city in the western part of the state. Family coverage for husband and wife, both forty-four years old, would run between $820 and $1005 a month for a Bronze policy, $1026 to $1419 for a Silver policy, and $1477 to $1813 for a Gold version. This year, the state says that a family with kids and an income of $66,150 (300 percent of the poverty level) can afford to spend as much as $364 each month on health insurance, or $4368 a year—about seven percent of their income. All but three of the fourteen Connector policies cost at least $1000 a month, or $12,000 a year—eighteen percent of their income. The Abrams problem again! With premiums like these, it’s no wonder that 42 percent of the 22,000 people who have bought coverage through the Connector chosen Bronze policies. Only seven percent went for the Gold...

...Rates vary by where a person lives—a reflection of the costs of medical care in a particular area. Premiums for a family of four living around Harvard Square in Cambridge may spend a couple hundred dollars more than the same family in Pittsfield. Premiums also vary by age; the law allows carriers to charge older people twice as much as they do a younger person for identical coverage. Insurers must take everyone regardless of how sick they are, so varying premiums by age becomes a proxy for taking health status into consideration after all. Older people are more likely to have health problems that, in an insurer’s eyes, justify higher rates...

We did a little shopping on the Connector site and found that Blue Cross Blue Shield is charging our hypothetical Pittsfield family, husband and wife both age fifty-four, a monthly premium of $2,252 for its HMO Blue Premium policy and $1,628 for its HMO Blue Value with Basic Rx. If the husband and wife are both thirty-four, premiums are hundreds of dollars cheaper—$1649 and $1,192..."

[man4allcats]

82. Re: "SINGLE PAYER INSURANCE NOW - because nothing else will WORK"

I have been saying this for some time now. People are yelling "Public Option! Public Option!" as if that were going to fix things even if it doesn't get bargained away completely. It truly amazes me how absolutely bone-headed this country can be. Single payer is not a new concept. Even if one ignores the track record of Medicare, every other industrialized country employs single payer health care. The experiment has already been done! We don't need to re-invent the wheel. All we have to do is copy the plan used successfully elsewhere. I realize as Americans we're pretty lazy intellectually, but one would think we would at least have enough intellectual horsepower to simply copy! The public option won't work. Single payer will.

[sui generis]

126. the hardest part of any of this is that private health insurers

believe they have a right to profit, and most of us agree. We don't look at health care as a national value with as much of a "right" as we have to breathe.

How then would we view breathing air providers? Or a president that mandates that we get breathing coverage from a private company? Primary health care "insurers" should not exist as for-profit institutions. Cosmetic and elective procedures - sure profit away, but basic primary healthcare, like breathing, should not be a for-profit activity.

[debbierlus]

165. It always makes me nauseous when I hear people defending the 'rights' of the insurance companies

to profit off human illness....

They are useless leeches. Their very existence results in premature human death and suffering untold.

And, the fact that Obama has defended them and pushed legislation crafted around their continued profiteering, speaks volumes to where we stand as a country on this issue. If we truly believe health care a human right, he would never be allowed to sell such unethical and immoral legislation.

[excess_3]

85. nobody has thought this thru

sorta like building a ship.

everybody nails a few boards to the ship.
doesn't matter where, cuz there is no plan.

the people building don't care, they wont be riding on the ship anyway.

[AllyCat]

87. A plan similar to what I have now would be $1800/mo for us!!!

I have a plan through work so they pay a good amount of the premium, but we still fork over about $350/mo with the uncovered stuff. This is nuts!! We couldn't afford that. It's more than our mortgage!!!

[TCJ70]

88. Until insurance companies are in the business of insuring people...

...and not making money, things will not change. Of course, with a for-profit insurance business model, this is impossible. Without a public option that sets the affordable standard of insurance is in place, nothing will change.

[AlbertCat]

92. Health Care SHOULD be expensive....that's why single payer is the only way.

It's expensive because it requires state-of-the-art technology and products and it also requires well educated specialists.

So it should cost some money. Like building a highway. Or a levee. Or a bridge across the Mississippi. That's why we let governments do that

It expensive like going to war, or going into space, or testing all food and water. That's why the government does that too.


For crying out loud! Raise everyone's taxes .003%, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, stop building bombers to defend us from the USSR, and make Exxon and the churches pay their fair share of taxes and we could all have great health care AND probably nix the .003% for individuals.

[Enthusiast]

97. I'm with you, AlbertCat.

Stop spending more for the military than the entire rest of the world combined. I mean, what possible justification is there for this kind of spending?

[valerief]

114. I am ON BOARD with that! nt

[debbierlus]

152. Bravo, my friend!

[DesertFlower]

99. holy shit.

i put in my husband and me -- both ages 62. the lowest premium was $824 a month. our mortgage payment is only $729. this is insane.

i re-did it -- this time making us both age 30. still the lowest cost was over $400 a month.

one person -- age 30 -- $228 a month. Well that's not too bad.

[kath]

121. Well, those rates are probably for policies that don't actually COVER anything, leaving you w/ HUGE

out-of-pocket expenses (and still the possibility of being bankrupted by medical expenses), no??

[liberal N proud]

103. The idiots in Congress proposing mandated insurance either don't get it or

They are being paid off by the insurance companies to bleed more profits at the cost of American people having a livable wage.


I honestly believe it is the latter.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

104. Thanks so much for PROVING that Romneycare is NOT the model for the country.

Like I always say, if we wanted Romneycare, we would have voted for Romney.

[Wednesdays]

105. Well, at least your taxes aren't going up.

:sarcasm:

[Vinca]

108. This is my biggest fear - that somehow the Massachusetts "plan"

will be the model for the country. What a nightmare.

[leveymg]

109. This is like privatizing Social Security knowing the stock market will crash. We're suckers.

It's an established pattern. "Pump and dump". Pull the suckers in, blow up the bubble, then pull the plug, collect gov't bailout. Ah, life is s-o-o-o sweet, if you're a global banker.

[Uben]

111. Even those numbers are better than what I have now

I am paying $1550/mo for $5K deductible and 50% of the next $10K!

[pleah]

112. K& R

[valerief]

113. Thank you for this research! nt

[DeepBlueC]

116. wow

:kick:

[paparush]

117. Let's say we end 1 of our 3 wars, close some corporate tax loopholes, and streamline

the billing system.

I bet we pay for single payer with $$ left over for playground equipment. :-)

[ooglymoogly]

118. KR for exposing the crapola we are being fed and many are swallowing. kr nt

[WinkyDink]

119. Here is something: I have a friend who was the first female VP of HR at a major company. Her son

teaches public school, as did I.

When I told her that, after 30 years and with an M. Ed. plus a Guidance certification, I had never made $70K, she was SHOCKED.

I AM NOT complaining! I am saying that "affordability" is a term that SCARES ME, because I think too many people call themselves "Middle-class" when they are WEALTHY.

And that our Congresspeople are WAAAAY out of touch with the REAL Middle Class (the poor go without saying).

[debbierlus]

166. Wealth doesn't realize it is a small minority because they are isolated from reality

And, the struggles that the MAJORITY face.

Change will happen simply because so many people will be forced to confront these realities in their own lives, in this 'new' economy.

[Echo In Light]

122. Rec

[area51]

123. Kick on this important issue. (n/t)

[Eyerish]

127. K&R nt

[GOTV]

128. My rate in MA for a family of 3 is $364

If you use that site and go through the affordability tool, your rates are reduced if your family income is less than $114,400.

According to the site, if your income is between $54,937 & $72,800 your premium is only $364

[keepCAblue]

133. That amount is NOT your premium...

The number on that table is NOT the amount of your premium. It is only the number used to determine what you can afford based on income range. This number is used to determine whether or not you are subject to the tax penalty for not carrying insurance...

[seafan]

130. Thank you, debbierlus, for this stunning post. You have peeled back the lies we are being told.

I am convinced beyond all doubt that single payer Medicare For All is the answer.


A so-called public option will only affect a very small number of people, if they don't first just give up in confusion and disgust at the mish-mash of plans lying in a heap of unidentifiable, crappy rules. Nothing in the way of a tiny public option will do ANYTHING other than preserve the power, control and massive profits of Big Insurance/Big Pharma.

Mandating people to buy private insurance is beyond outrageous. It is the equivalent of Big Insurance having the power to tax us. No wonder Big Insurance is salivating over tens of millions of healthy younger people being forced to buy their insurance via this mandate. If Medicare was expanded to cover those 45 years of age and over, even this would blow the top off Big Insurance's monopoly.

Big Insurance is taking those 50 and over to the cleaners if they get away with this mandate robbery.


See this piece:

How The Baucus Bill Bilks People Over 50, , September 18, 2009



Please tell us, debbierlus, that you've sent your work to Rachel, Keith and Ed. Our spineless wimps/corporate toadies in Congress need to be slapped silly with it as well.




Single-payer Medicare For All is the answer. Anything less will fail, and that inevitable failure will be used relentlessly to bludgeon Obama and Democrats.



People are deeply furious out here. If this health care abomination is not addressed, mark it down now, there will be a nationwide revolt.

[Hawkowl]

131. Obama as Mitt Romney

Great! More Chump Change!

Obama is seriously working hard to be the most spectacular one term president ever.

[Solly Mack]

132. K&R

[Thornleylv]

134. K&R. N/T

[Neecy]

135. thank you for the research

We keep hearing about how this insurance pool will be affordable, but it's a concept that seems to be a flat failure in the one large market in which it's been implemented.

I turn 50 next year. With the Baucus plan allowing the insurance industry to start gouging me at 50, I shudder to think how much I'm going to have to pay, even for junk insurance.

I think the entire concept of reform needs to be rethought, including price controls.

[kath]

136. As someone said above, "Affordable" to a Senator, President, Congresscritter, lobbyist, Insurance

company executive is not in any way reality-based. What the hell planet are they living on, that they call such expenses for premiums, co-pays, deductibles and medications "affordable"?!??

Jeebus H. Christ on a Trailer Hitch.

:argh:

[LiberalLovinLug]

141. Here in my Canadian province I pay about $65 a month - single payer of course

And there was big uproar when it almost doubled from about $35 a month a few years back. (right wing gov did it of course)
And of course there is no "pre-existing condition" in our vocabulary.

:hide:

[grahamhgreen]

142. No PAY OR PUNISH Crapsurance. Scuttle the BAUCUS BOONDOGGLE! Single Payer or Bust.

[Fearless]

144. No one claimed it was the end all and be all... It is less not affordable however...

And that is a step.

To the rest who say all reform must be done at once, I laugh at you.

[grahamhgreen]

146. It's a step in the wrong direction - it will fill big insurance coffers with cash which they will

use to scuttle any further 'reform' that does not enrich them even more than this sh*t-plan.

[Fearless]

150. I beg to differ.

The fact is that any insurance is always better than none. The money insurance companies have made from it is pennies on the dollar and they already had plenty to negate future plans. What this plan did do was give people who didn't have insurance the better change of getting it. And it arose awareness of the issue. It also creates a sense of entitlement which I seem to feel from you as well, that everyone should get strong quality health care as a right regardless of wealth. This has opened dialogs. In the future, after the recession has ended you will see this issue get picked up again if we don't get national reform. The fact is now that we aren't currently discussing openly other options or better funding because the state is waiting to see what the feds will do. Money is tight, and while this isn't the best idea, it is the financially prudent idea insofar as traditional economics dictates. I disagree, but I digress as well. It is a step in the right direction and the things you've mentioned have not and will not happen.

[grahamhgreen]

153. The Baucus Boondoggle is a gift to big insurance. Insurance that does not pay out is worse than none

The money insurance companies have stolen is enough to pay for health coverage for every single American, not just 'pennies on the dollar'.

They have used this money already to scuttle real reform - this is how we've wound up with these crapsurance bills.

People have been forced to pay taxes to private corporations for 'insurance' that may never be paid out. There is a 25 to 50% denial of claims rate amoung big insurance.

We have been working on this issue for 100 years - there is no need to settle for BS.

The most financially prudent plan is single payer - hands down - bar none - there is no argument, is there?

http://pnhp.org

[Fearless]

159. The all or nothing argument doesn't work within the legislature...

Only the judicial branch has that luxury. If you won't settle for something, you will get nothing. Something is better than nothing, but then you must continue to push for what you really want.

You can disagree if you must, but you'll have no historical precedence to base that opinion on. It would simply be conjecture.

[grahamhgreen]

161. Some THINGS are worse than nothing. Mandatory private insurance is far worse than the status quo.

[Fearless]

164. No it isn't.

[Yo_Mama]

145. Really Good Post

Yes, that's the problem.

First, they are mandating a lot of coverages to be in your plan, and they are mandating no refusals, so that raises the premiums.

I just can't see how the mandate can possibly work. And if it hasn't worked in MA, which is a very wealthy state in the US, it is going to be even worse for the rest of the country.

The reason single payer works is because everyone pays a set percentage of their income, so it never gets out of control. Plus, it is paid for. There is some rationing, but overall most people get more care without the extra payments, and it is predictable. Your doctor doesn't have to waste that much time trying to figure out whether you are covered or not, and doctors don't have to fight with 20 different companies.

My greatest fear is that the plan will really end up subsidizing the poorer families with the taxes (oops, fines) for not buying insurance they get from the "in-between" crew, who will end up worse off than ever. And if that happens, I guarantee that the in-betweens will suddenly be seen as a very helpful revenue source, so no real effort will ever be made to redress the situation.

I sat down with several versions and tried to make the numbers work, and I couldn't.

[catrose]

155. MA basically thinks

that you can afford to double your housing bill. Which if you could, you'd already be living in a better place than you are. And housing takes 30-40% of your income. (It's been awhile since I've looked at those numbers, and they were going up in the 90s.)

So why do they believe you can magically increase your income that much or lower your expenses? Who balances their checkbooks?

[twitomy]

162. Cant speak for MA;

But I know how the Feds do it:Print more money!

[G_j]

157. kick

[wiggs]

160. Nice work, and why aren't journalists and pundits doing the same? nt