Can you say with 100% certainty that you will be paying more (or less) for healthcare?

[rucky]

under the new plan.

I honestly have no flippin' idea - and I think that's part of the problem. I don't think anybody really does. One of the biggest shortcomings of the bill - and in the selling of the plan - is that we don't know what the real-life application of this will be like. Don't just tell us this is a good plan - show us. Don't just say it's a bad plan - at least attempt to quantify how bad it is.

I remember in the campaign when Obama was pitching his tax proposal, and you could go on the website, enter how much you earn, number of dependents, etc, and get a good idea of whether your taxes would go up or down.

I wish there were a tool like this for the healthcare plan. I know there are tons of variables to consider, but just getting a ballpark figure of out-of-pocket costs - based on each of our needs, or any scenario you're curious about - would really help ease alot of fears (or demonstrate how we're being duped).

I don't think it's possible to really estimate this, so we're split on the issue and arguing based on fear or faith, conflicting economic principles, and mere speculation. One example is the mandate: On one hand, it can be seen as a racket - we're forced to buy in, some of us will get subsidies, but we still don't know how much we'll really pay. The argument for the mandate is that the routine care and having healthy people buy in will help control costs (the $100 asprin has been an example of how healthcare providers recoup costs of care for the uninsured), and these cost reductions will be passed down. In theory, this makes sense as much as the racket argument does, but there are no explicit guarantees of this in the bill (that I know of).

The proponents of the plan could go a long way in gaining more enthusiastic support if they could give specific examples of how the new plan will help. Early on in the debate, it was the stories of healthcare nightmares that really exposed how rotten the current system is. How about going back to some of these extreme cases and showing the actual value of the plan will bring to these people? How about someone in their 20's and uninsured? Is there an incentive for them to get insured, or just a punishment if they don't? If we insure the uninsured, what is the estimated cost savings for the rest of us? Does limiting out-of-pocket expenses cancel this out, due to the added burden we'll shoulder in covering catastrophic illness?

So many unanswered questions. It's the uncertainty - more than the plan itself - that's making it catch so much heat. Maybe the answers are out there, but it's the responsibility of the people selling us this - or bent on sinking it - to bring those answers to us.

[Winterblues]

1. We might know more when there actually is a Bill and it gets signed into Law by Obama.

:shrug:

[HuckleB]

43. Exactly.

[ZombieHorde]

2. Recommended. Fantastic OP. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

3. I can't say with 100% certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow

we could get hit by an asteroid tonight.



There are no guarantees, but this plan should help reduce the number of people who die from lack of access to medical care.

[valerief]

4. It's not just about what we're each paying. It's about what America is getting

for what it's paying.

[Ineeda]

13. You're using the wrong tense...

It should be 'what we will be paying'...'what America will be getting'. It could be bad, it could be good, it could be neutral, and will undoubtedly vary for different segments of our society. But we won't fully know until there's a completed bill. :hi:

[valerief]

15. Hi, backatcha, Ineeda!!!!

:hi:

[Ineeda]

23. Hi. I'm off to the beach to clear my muddled head.

Later, gator.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. No

[DJ13]

6. Its been my experience that if actual costs arent mentioned

Its because its not good news.

You can bet the CBO determination of costs included costs per individual (how else to determine cost of the overall bill?), but the fact the Dems in the Senate arent touting how inexpensive the costs were in that projection it would be used as part of the sales pitch leading up to the vote.

That means its more expensive to individuals than they want to tell us before its passed.

[SoCalDem]

7. We have a Cadillac Plan.. so I am apprehensive n.t

[Libertas1776]

9. So do I

and I ain't optimistic.

[SoCalDem]

12. all they need to do is to tweak it by income...like under 100K

for the family, and you're not going to pay as much.. This is going to really suck for so many people who are lucky enough to have union coverage, but who don;t make a lot of money..

The coverage is nothing more than years of "passed-up" raises, and this is inherently unfair.

Of course this is a bon mot to the folks who want to finish the job on unions.. If the good benefits go away, there will be less to attract people to union membership:grr:

[dysfunctional press]

49. they HAVE to do something about it- if they don't want to piss off union members across the country.

my father, a retired heavy-equipment operator, and all of his buddies, are extremely pissed-off about the prospect.
one more out-of-touch miscalculation by the dinos that seem to keep on calling the shots.

[dysfunctional press]

48. so does my father- a retired union heavy equipment operator.

the administration is making a HUGH mistake in taxing the 'cadillac plans' of blue-collar union workers.
through the years, the way that the union members achieved the level of care these plans offer them was by foregoing higher wages on their checks when contracts and working agreements were negotiated.
it is going to piss off a LOT of lifelong democrats. my father, a life-long democratic voter said yesterday that if that it's a part of the final bill, he'll NEVER vote for another democrat as long as he lives, and that all of the union guys he knows have said the same thing.

the midterm election results are NOT going to be pretty for our side.

[global1]

8. Obama Said We'd Be Saving $2500 On Our Health Insurance......

I'm waiting to see if my premium will be reduced $2500 before I criticize.

[Sub Atomic]

10. If it were enacted today then yes I would have to pay more.

I'd be slapped with a bill for not being able to afford this new mandated insurance giveaway.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. Don't worry it doesn't start for 4 years.

[B Calm]

11. Health care cost me more every year, regardless of any bill that might

be passed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Same but mine was not going ot change

either way...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. More by a lot without question.

[kestrel91316]

18. Well, my healthcare costs now are zero: I cannot afford any insurance that will have me.

They think the fact that I haven't been to a doctor in 5 years means I have some sort of secret pre-existing condition I don't want anybody to know about, when in fact I am healthy as a horse (unless I have some inapparent cancer or other issue that has develpped since I last saw a doctor). And even if I got sick I wouldn't be able to pay for a doctor, so I just take good care of myself and hope for the best.

So yes, I will be paying a lot more (with WHAT MONEY I have no idea), since they seem to think out-of-pocket expenses of what, $7000/year, for even the poorest of the poor is perfectly ok.

I'd be forced to live in my car by that sort of expense, IF I had a car.

[Arkansas Granny]

50. Those out-of-pocket expenses are the reason I keep telling people

that having health insurance doesn't mean having health care.

[blondeatlast]

19. I have no idea--and nothing on DU has helped clarify, either. nt

[rucky]

22. Damn if that ain't the truth. n/t

[Oregone]

20. I predict per capita health expenditures will rise in the US

(Based on a variety of reasons Ive stated before)

Who knows who will be ultimately paying the offset, but it has to be someone. And if the burden isn't distributed in a non-evasive manner, this could cause a lot of problems with America and its competitiveness internationally (and everyone will pay) .

For some reason people lost sight that the US is paying double what other nations are per person. This bill isn't aimed to address this, but rather expand private insurance. Costs must be cut, and its likely the existing private market is a bad place to start doing that.

On an individual level, this bill may help. On the macro-level, good luck.

[elocs]

21. Can I say with 100% certainty that I will not fall over dead before I compete this post? Nope.

For some it may go up, for others it may not. I've read that the uninsured cost the average family $100 a month. The important thing is to provide more Americans with healthcare coverage and not just what's in it for me or what will it save me. I would not gripe if I had to pay more when I could get better coverage and not have to worry about pre-existing conditions or being summarily dropped and if I knew millions of Americans would also be helped.

The "what's in it for me" is a very Republican attitude because as long as something is there for them, everyone else can get screwed. Republicans spend an inordinate amount of time worrying that someone may get something they don't get, or that someone will get something they perceive is undeserved. As a Democrat I of course would like to be helped and would like to save, but I am as much concerned that others who may not even have what I have be helped also.

As a Democrat I believe I am my brothers' and my sisters' keeper as opposed to Republicans who are YOYOs (You're On Your Own) and whose main concern is what's in it for me.

[rucky]

28. I don't think that's fair.

Wanting to know the impact is not being selfish. Maybe you want to know what you'll pay. Maybe you want to know how much less a catastrophically ill person will have to pay. The information should be free for the public to use it however they want. Proponents and opponents don't know the real impact. We need to measure it.

For the record, I support the bill because I believe it will help the most extreme cases, even though i have no idea of what my personal impact will be.

[Ineeda]

32. I agree 100%

Some on here can afford to pay a little more (that includes me, despite my minuscule income) and some can't. It just seems to me that people simply don't want to be compelled. Understandable, but the bigger picture is that (hopefully) 'the least among us' will be helped immeasurably. This time of year, when I see the bell-ringers in front of the stores, I think that many, many folks drop a dollar or two in that red kettle, even if they can't really afford to, because it's going to help those who need it the most. Why can't we look at this the same way?

[elocs]

38. Often those who can least afford it are the most generous.

I can remember very many years ago when I was delivering flowers on Mother's Day and I delivered of all things some lighted, plastic tulips to this old lady. She asked me to wait while she got me a tip (where I live people would rarely ever tip someone delivering flowers). Now money obviously meant something to this old lady and when she gave me the dollar I said, "thank you, and happy Mother's Day". My gift to her was to allow her to be generous.

Another time I was working for our local civic center and when there was an event they would charge $1 (that's "one" dollar) to park in the ramp. The ones who got bent out of shape and bitched about it: the ones in the big and expensive cars. The people in the beaters would tend to give you the buck and tell you to have a nice day. The nice cars seem to represent the Republican attitude while the beaters seemed like Democrats.

[Tailormyst]

24. No- and that is the problem

The only ones we know will be better off are the insurance companies. Our representatives are supposed to work for us. They haven't been. This whole fight just represents a far bigger cancer growing within the city limits of DC.

[walldude]

25. The bill is not done. No one can say anything for sure...

According to Dems they are going to make improvements. Lets hope they aren't the same "improvements" they have been making all along.

[rucky]

27. Are you saying they're planning this without running numbers?

I suspect that, as well. The CBO scores just show what the plan does for the federal budget. Where's the number-crunching for our pocketbooks?

[walldude]

58. No, what I'm saying is the bill now goes to committee

where they combine the House and Senate bill and try to come up with something workable. The bill is not done. Now we have to wait and see who theyside with. Insurance companies are out in force complaining that this bill is going to screw with their profit margins. 6 months ago I would have laughed and said the Dems had our back but as it stands they have thrown us under the bus and then laughed at us while we got run over. I see no reason to think that they won't remove or raise the cap on any mandate.

[MineralMan]

26. Not much will be known for certain until the bill is reconciled

in the conference committee, then passed, and signed. At that point, we can begin discussing the entire bill and what it will mean.

At this point, it's pretty nebulous and confusing.

[itsrobert]

29. Obama said my Military Tricare Prime will be unaffected

So I take that as meaning I will not have to pay a health care tax. Is that correct?

[FLDCVADem]

56. I'm thinking you're correct

You shouldn't be hit by a fine as you have health insurance coverage (TriCare Prime).

[earth mom]

30. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that those bastards will sock it to us all for as much

as they can.


They have been handed a MANDATE which to those insurance company bastards translates into ENRON ON STEROIDS. :grr:

[OHdem10]

31. Those of us who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage will be

be paying more. When they remove the govt.subsidy from the
Advantage Plans, no doubt the company is going to charge us more.

If we should wish to go to Medicare, we will have to purchase
a Medigap Plan because Medicare does not cover very much anymore.
The additional Medigap Plan will add additional costs.

Most people agree that this group will pay more. In fact, M. Allen
in describing the HIR Bill today reported that the Advantage Plan
people will have to pay more.

[subterranean]

33. Here's one tool you can use:

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

It's a calculator to determine roughly how much you will pay and how much your subsidy (if any) will be. Mind you, I can't vouch for the accuracy of this calculator since the final bill is still being worked out.

The problem with giving specific examples of the plan's application is that how it will affect you depends on so many different factors, and there are exceptions to just about everything. It's extremely complicated, and there's no "one-size-fits-all" explanation of any aspect of the bill.

By the way, I can say with 100% certainty that I will be paying more for health insurance, since I'm currently uninsured.

[blogslut]

35. Thanks for that link

This time I bookmarked it.

As I suspected, according to that calculator - under both the Senate and House plans, I will qualify for Medicaid.

[rucky]

37. Awesome - thanks!

I just lost my insurance, too (and my job). Not sure if & what the subsidies will cover, since I still have some savings to live off, and am drawing unemployment.

Edit: looks like I'll qualify for Medicaid.

[mullard12ax7]

34. I can say for sure I WILL NOT PAY LESS

This bill is a fascist piece of propaganda that's been swallowed whole by every sucker out there.

[Lilith Velkor]

36. No, but I'll have less to spend on healthcare if I have to buy insurance or pay fines

[HopeHoops]

39. I can say with certainty that I will be paying more than 40% more for healthcare in 2010.

I know this because the company-provided healthcare premium went up by a little over 40% effective 1 Jan 2010. That obviously has nothing to do with the HCR bill, but I can say with certainty that I'll be paying more.

[bvar22]

40. You WILL be paying MORE.

The $600Billion to 0ne Trillion Dollars in "subsidies" WILL be coming OUT of the Public Treasury.
That WILL be over and above money coming OUT of YOUR pocket.

Since I am currently one of the "uninsured", I WILL positively be paying more under the Mandate for a High Deductible Policy I won't be able to afford to use. :(

[Hydra]

41. The fact that there are no solid numbers and they keep saying they can't do the simple stuff

Is not encouraging. When someone tries to complicate a matter, they're playing you. This situation is very simple- People can't afford to pay more(and shouldn't), but because Wall St. needs a new bubble, the old system will hold and we'll all be forced to pay into it.

[Hello_Kitty]

42. Here's the link to the Kaiser chart that should give you some idea of the premiums

You can plug in your age and income for an individual or family of four. Can't help you on out-of-pockets though.

[dysfunctional press]

47. so- where's the link...?

:shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

51. Sorry! It didn't show up for some reason.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

[dysfunctional press]

52. according to that- my wife's costs would be doubled from what they are now...

she would be paying 11.7% of our income, and getting NO subsidies.

yeah...this legislation sounds just fucking great.

[Hello_Kitty]

53. Shh. You'll be accused of not caring about "the poor" if you complain. eom

[dysfunctional press]

54. it sounds like this bill is going to help us join the ranks of 'the poor'.

:grr:

[FLDCVADem]

57. why wouldn't your wife keep the plan she has now

instead of switching to something that costs more?

[dysfunctional press]

61. because the plan she has sucks, and we were foolishly hoping for something better with this bill?

:shrug:

[eridani]

44. Insurance companies may not keep fucking us over by jacking rates

But that isn't the way to bet.

[mmonk]

45. Most likely more. It's going up next month.

[TexasObserver]

46. I'll be shocked if anyone saves anything on their health care costs.

The notion that this bill will reduce the costs of health care to anyone is an expectation that won't likely be fulfilled.

There is nothing to reduce overall health care costs, so those costs will continue to be incurred, and they'll be whatever the providers want to charge, without reference to fairness or cost.

[Hello_Kitty]

55. I think some people in the 200% or so FPL range will.

If they're already paying for individual policies, the caps on premiums and the subsidies will help quite a bit. As income goes up, however, the savings diminish until they pretty much go away entirely once you make "too much" for subsidies.

[Greyhound]

59. And what could be more useless than complaining about it after it's done? n/t

[stillwaiting]

60. I'm sure that once the legislation passes the insurance companies wouldn't dare

raise rates dramatically immediately would they? I mean that would hurt the Democrats and they wouldn't dare do that?

Please see credit card companies for what to expect in the very near future.

People are going to be PISSED at the Democrats. Union workers and middle class Americans, in particular. The poor amongst us will quickly realize that the insurance they're now able to get doesn't do much to ensure them access to their health care needs. That access will still be out of reach for millions. Talk about a crappy bill.

The outgoing Democrats must have some lucrative employment opportunities already lined up. It's the only explanation for their current behavior.