Top 10 Reasons to Kill Senate Health Care Bill

[merkins]

Top 10 Reasons to Kill Senate Health Care Bill

1. Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.

2. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.

3. Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can’t afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.

4. Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

5. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.

6. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.

7. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.

8. Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.

9. No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.

10. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.


Background information on each point:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/hardship-wavier-and-restrictions-on-immigrants-buying-insurance-undercut-arguments-for-an-individual-mandate/">1. Hardship Waiver And Restrictions On Immigrants Buying Insurance Undercut Arguments For An Individual Mandate, by Jon Walker

http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/19/whats-in-the-managers-amendment/">2. What’s in the Manager’s Amendment by David Dayen

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/12/16/the-mybarackobamatax/">3. MyBarackObama Tax by Marcy Wheeler

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/19778">4. Emperor Ben Nelson: All Your Uteruses Are Belong To Me by Scarecrow

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/the-senate-bill-is-designed-to-make-your-health-insurance-worse/">5. The Senate Bill is Designed to Make Your Health Insurance Worse by Jon Walker

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/17/best-way-to-%E2%80%9Cfix-it-later%E2%80%9D-is-with-no-individual-mandate-now/">6. Best way to “Fix It Later” Is With No Individual Mandate Now by Jon Walker

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/20/the-senate-health-care-bill-is-built-on-a-foundation-of-sand/">7. The Senate Health Care Bill is Built on a Mountain of Sand by Jon Walker

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/02/the-devil-in-anna-eshoos-details/">8. The Devil in Anna Eshoo’s Details by Jane Hamsher

http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/15/dorgan-reimportation-amendment-up-for-a-vote/">9. Liveblog of the Dorgan Reimportation Amendment by David Dayen

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/16/answering-nate-silvers-20-questions-on-killing-the-senate-bill/">10. Answering Nate Silver’s 20 Questions on the Health Care Bill by Jon Walker

__________________________________________________________________________________________
This is from the respected financial/economics professional Yves Smith at the Naked Capitalism blog
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/12/top-ten-reasons-to-kill-the-senate-health-care-bill.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29">Much more info in the article here

[blogslut]

1. For the first time in my adult life I will be able to get healthcare

I will qualify for Medicare under this new plan.

[clear eye]

37. No, you would qualify for MEDICAID.

I haven't read anything about new people qualifying for Medicare. And as of now (until they destroy Medicare), there's a BIG difference.

[blogslut]

43. Forgive me

I gave the wrong name. Medicaid. I will qualify for Medicaid. For the first time in my adult life I will be able to receive health care in the form of Medicaid.

[clear eye]

48. Reason I was being emphatic

is not b/c you misspoke (miswrote?), but b/c quite a few DUers w/ experience w/ Medicaid call it a "death sentence" (their words, not mine). There are so few specialists of any sort anywhere taking Medicaid, and even a shortage of primary doctors everywhere but urban centers, that you could be having chest pains or have suspicious spotting and be told that someone 50 mi. away can evaluate you in two months, if you are still alive by then. That is IF you live somewhere where there are enough primary doctors in a clinic that you don't have to first wait 2 months to see one of them. Then, if, heaven forbid, you turn out to have cancer, some of the best treatments aren't covered, nor are expensive meds like Enbrel that is the difference between functioning and total, painful disability and a shortened lifespan for many people diagnosed w/ auto-immune conditions.

This two-tiered rationing of crucial healthcare is one of the U.S.'s dirty little secrets. It is a main reason we NEED a European-style single payer system.

[FLDCVADem]

2. I agree with you in all but #4

There is no additional restriction on a woman's right to choose in this bill.

None, nada, zip, zilch.

[Donnachaidh]

3. sure there is

if she has to pay extra to get an abortion if needed and she's barely able to pay the premiums -- it IS a restriction.

[FLDCVADem]

4. It's potentially a restriction on payment for abortion

but not a restriction on abortion.

Other than the requirement for a separate check (and this would only apply to subsidized policies in the exchange, not all policies), there is absolutely nothing new in the bill vis a vis payment for abortion. Federal dollars haven't been available for abortions (with few exceptions) in decades, and those dollars won't be available now.

Roe v. Wade says a woman has an right to have a abortion in most cases - it doesn't say she has a right to have the government or insurance pay for it.

**edited spelling error

[Donnachaidh]

6. semantics --

and you (and Ben Nelson) know that a woman who is single and poor is less likely to get an abortion if she cannot PAY for it. So she's forced to buy into a mandated insurance that RESTRICTS her RIGHT to abortion, because of some other person's religious beliefs - - BUT that same mandated insurance will pay for pre-natal care?

Please -- don't piss up my back and tell me it's raining. It IS restriction - it IS a violation of HER rights. This is one of the issues I hope to see the ACLU take to court right out of the gate. And it will LOSE and Ben Nelson will have to try to control someone else's uterus in the future.

[FLDCVADem]

7. I've said before and I'll say again

All of this outrage over the Senate and House bills regarding abortion just shows how little people know about the Hyde Amendment. Until it is overturned, and it should be, soonest, there will be no federal funds going for abortion, outside the existing exemptions.

Why are people just now upset about it, especially when there is NOTHING different when it comes to funding in these bills than currently exists?

And this hypothetical poor woman you mention in your example - if she needs an abortion now, the government isn't going to pay for it - what's different in this bill? What restriction exists in this bill that doesn't exist now? Nothing, that's what.

And I'd love to hear why you think the ACLU can force federal funding for abortion now when they haven't been able to for the past 30 years.

Unfair? Yes. A violation of Roe v. Wade? Of course not.

[PeaceNikki]

41. This restricts ACCESS.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[FLDCVADem]

42. I disagree

The bottom line is that this bill deals with PAYMENT for abortion, not ACCESS to abortion.

But since you seem hell-bent on saying it restricts access, then please explain how this bill changes access for poor women from what they have now. How are women going to have less access to abortion under this bill than they have now?

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

[PeaceNikki]

44. The ACLU, NARAL, NOW and many other organizations that support civil rights agree with me.

And nothing I post will likely convince you - since you're "hell-bent" on insisting it doesn't.

So... whatev.

[FLDCVADem]

47. Yeah, like I said

It doesn't do any such thing.

[niyad]

5. trying to get you out of the un'rec column. . see the water-carriers are here.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

8. Ditto. (n/t)

[Demeter]

9. And the Ultimate Reason--We Cannot EVER Get Anything Better If This Bill Passes

It will be the dead end of reform. There will be no tweaking, no broadening, no progressive improvement. This bill is designed to STIFLE change, to prohibit it entirely.

[BeFree]

10. Well, The bill will need fixing.

If it as bad as the OP makes it out to be, people will be damn near rioting.

Riots work. Congress hears and sees riots. Riots will make them change the law even tho you may think that impossible.

So, get your riot on. I'll be there to help.

[PufPuf23]

25. The Senate HCB stifles Progressive change whether

incremental or transformational in the future. IMO transformational now is best.

Our health care is the laughing stock of medical care in modern industrial nations; perceptually nuanced class eugenics.

Linking mandates, for profit purchases of too often defective product, and with IRS penalty as enforcement is blatant fascism.

There needs to be far more supply side fixes: cheap and more available medical education, community health care, etc.

The CBO only addresses federal budget not wealth transfers in the public sector.

[grahamhgreen]

27. +1

[NoUsername]

28. Oh hey, c'mon now.

Don't you remember how we heard the same thing about so many things in the past and we all know all the laws passed during the horrendous Bush administration have been overturned and/or revised to reflect the new leadership in DC. Take the Military Commissions Act for instance. We all remember how that was immediately overturned once the Dems took office.

Oh wait...

[NotGivingUp]

11. k&r! forcing citizens to buy health insurance is illegal and is NOT a national healthcare plan.

Pay now...possibly get benefits years from now...bullshit. It's a freaking tax.

[Historic NY]

12. Yawn it passed live with it until both bills are reconciled.....

and a final bill is passed for the POTUS signature. I'm sure it will be better than what the Republicans put forth.

[phasma ex machina]

13. K&R

[Matariki]

14. I'm against the bill(s) as it currently stands - but...

some of the things in this list seem unsupported or based on rumor.

For instance where is that '$11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses' coming from? Based on what in either the house or senate bill?

Also, the a number of your links go to 'page not found' messages. Particularly the Huffington Post links to Jon
Walker.

[dflprincess]

21. The House bill allows an annual deductible of $1,500

with maximium out of pockets of $5,000 for a single and $10,000 for a family. These maximums do not include premiums and out of pocket expenses for services not covered (vision and dental for example) by insurance.

Out of pockets this high will still make it difficult for many people to actually access care.

[Matariki]

32. I'm confused. What's the difference between 'deductible' and 'out of pocket'?

And I thought those figures you mentioned were premium maximums in the house bill - $5k for single 10k for family?

[clear eye]

38. "Out of pocket" includes copays & premiums as well as deductible. n/t

[FLDCVADem]

39. Out of pocket doesn't include premiums

If it did, almost everyone would meet their out of pocket limit just by paying premiums.

[clear eye]

49. You're right.

I was rushing through a bunch of posts, and I goofed badly.

[dflprincess]

46. No it doesn't

premium is not included in total "out of pocket" expenses and it says so quite clearly in the House bill. This is the same as with private policies now.

The deductible is what you pay yourself before insurance picks up a dime. So, with the House plan you might have to come up with $1,500 before your insurance will pay. As a rule, dependning on your plan, after you meet your deductible the insurance company splits the cost with your (aka "co-insurnace), usually a 80/20 or 90/10 split until you hit your maximium out of pocket expense. Deductible does apply to total out of pocket. Only covered expenses will count toward out of pocket.

For example, as of Jan 1 my insurance will have a $1,200 deductible. Nothing, including prescriptions, will be covered until I have run up bills of $1,200 (hopefully I won't). My maximum out of pockets for covered expenses is $3,700 so after I hit the $1200, the insurance company and I will split the next $2,500 90%/10%. After I hit the max OOP the insurance company is suppose to pay everything.

However, my insurance does not cover things like vision or bone density test for people under 65 - if I have tests like that I pay the whole cost and it does not count toward the out of pocket max.

[clear eye]

50. The person I was answering asked the diff b/t deductible & out-of-pocket

Out-of-pocket also includes co-pays. Sorry about saying premiums. I wasn't properly focussed as I was writing. I actually know better.

[dflprincess]

54. We all make those kinds of errors

especially when were tossing around terms like these. I understand completely.

And I actually meant to respond, not just to you, but the person wondering how the terms were all defined. It just seemed to fit under your post more. :hi:

[nightrain]

40. "deductible" means that the insurer doesn't START paying until you pay the deductible amount.

[girl gone mad]

33. From the link above:

I wanted to do the same exercise again, because the Senate bill has changed to include more subsidies for those between 300 and 400% of the poverty level. As a result of those subsidies, the bill has gotten much better for the middle class. But it would still leave a family of four that had experienced a significant health care event with just $13,620 to pay for everything besides food, housing, health care, and income taxes.

I’m going to do two scenarios — one for someone just above 300% who will receive subsidies and have a premium limit, and one for someone just over 400%. While that artificially calculates the number for those who would be in the worst case scenario, as far as benefits (meaning they make just enough to miss out on some subsidies), it does give a basic idea of what this will do to middle class families (though it is inaccurate in that those over 400% of poverty have no cap on premiums, so those numbers could be higher). Since subsidies are figured on “silver” plans which allow actuarial values of 70%, this is what might happen to a family incurring around $39,666 in medical costs over the year, in which case they would pay the full out-of-pocket costs for their income level.301% of Poverty Level: $66,370

Federal Taxes (estimate from this page, includes FICA): $8,628 (13% of income)

State Taxes (using MI rates on $30,000 of income): $1,305 (2% of income)

Food (using “low-cost USDA plan” for family of four): $9,065 (14% of income)

Home (assume a straight 30% of income): $19,275 (30% of income)

Health Care: $14,477 ($7,973 out-of-pocket + 9.8% of income; totals 22% of income)

Total: $52,750 (79% of income)

Remainder for all other expenses (including education, clothing, existing debt, transportation, etc.): $13,620 (or 21% of income)

401% of Poverty Level: $88,420

Federal Taxes (really rought estimate based on this page, includes FICA): $13,263 (15% of income)

State Taxes (using MI rates on $45,000 of income): $1,957 (2% of income)

Food (using “low-cost USDA plan” for family of four): $9,065 (10% of income)

Home (assume a straight 30% of income): $26,526 (30% of income)

Health care: $20,565 ($11,900 out-of-pocket + 9.8% of income–though note there is no limit on premiums for this income level, so this could be higher; totals 23% of income)

Total: $71,376 (80% of income)

Remainder for all other expenses (including education, clothing, existing debt, transportation, etc.): $17,044 (or 19% of income)

I’m going to start collecting other likely costs below, to try to round this out.

Transportation costs (assumes 1 car, 12,000 miles/year, at IRS rembursement rate): $6,600

[Matariki]

35. Thanks for posting that. I've been trying to get this idea across from the start

It's good to see it in actual numbers.

What's missing from the 'remainder for all other expenses' is retirement and savings. Which will be our next crisis, especially if this plan passes the way it is.

Perhaps we can solve that by fining people who don't buy mutual funds?

[clear eye]

51. These amounts apply to people buying from the exchanges.

If you're already covered through your employer, your current plan is grandfathered in for 5 years after the law takes effect, if the insurance co. changes nothing. If your employer continues to offer you insurance, which will have to comply w/ a gameable medical loss ratio, you will not be elegible to buy from the exchange as long as you are employed, whether or not you like the plan.

[valerief]

15. And the for-profit private medical insurance companies can still deny your claims! nt

[mzmolly]

16. A complete crock.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/jane_hamshers_10_reaons_to_kil.html

[merkins]

17. Your rebuttal rebutted

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/21/ezra-klein-defender-of-the-free-market-economagic-health-care-myths/">Ezra Klein, Defender Of Free-Market Economagic Health Care Myths

[mzmolly]

30. Not very well,

I might add. One point was basically, weakly addressed four times. In addition, the tax in question is (to my understanding) not in the house legislation and may not even be in the final bill. Not to mention the fact that these health care plans can be changed if the tax is such a pressing issue.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. I agree, a complete crock

There is no mention of subsidies for the people who can't afford to buy insurance, nor is there any mention of the expansion of Medicaid.

The "woman's right to choose" argument is completely unfounded, we don't even know what the final language will be.

My current insurance plan won't be taxed, other will but I checked into it and it defiantly won't affect me.


The assumption that those taxes will cause cut backs does not take into account the new rule about using 85% or more of premiums on health care.

Grants monopolies???? Well, it does not end them but I don't know of anything that increases bit pharma's power, please correct me if I am wrong.


The cost will continue to rise.. well yes it will, but not as quickly as it would without the bill.


You also forgot to mention that 122 people a day die due to lack of access to medical care. If this bill cuts that number in half then it was a good start.

[dflprincess]

22. Many of the "Cadillac" insurance plans that will be taxed are

those negotiated by unions - who gave up wage increases to keep decent benefits. Now those benefits will be taxed. Way for the Democrats to stand up for organized labor.

But hey, at least your plan won't be taxed.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. It is my understanding that most Unions support Health Care Reform

I know they don't want their members to be taxed but who can blame them for that?


I can only assume that as contracts expire and are renegotiated the health care plans can be adjusted to reflect the new status quo.

[dflprincess]

24. Unions supported health care reform

there are quite a few not happy with the Insurance Profit Protection Act.

Are you suggesting that, in addition to the wage concessions they've been making, union members should now accept lesser health plans to avoid the taxes? Just doesn't seem right - or something the Democratic party should support.

[mzmolly]

31. Exactly.

Unions can and will renegotiate.

[mzmolly]

29. That is a talking

point I've heard as well. However to my understanding that "tax" is not in the house version.

[Motown_Johnny]

19. double post, self delete

.

[clear eye]

52. I debunked Klein's misleading article here>>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7300834&mesg_id=7300834

Don't you think DUers want an adequate HCR bill to be coming from Congress? When we post that it isn't, and why, it's b/c we realize that the suffering will only get worse w/ this miserable failure of a reform that manages only to further entrench poor coverage (especially Medicaid, but also inadequate private plans and loopholes that will be used to deny care to the allegedly insured), and degrade Medicare so that it will stymie most of the possibilities for improvement.

When you decide on the credibility of the info about the fatal flaws of the bill, consider it comes from people who hope that Democrats will succeed overall.

[sandnsea]

20. Did you get that from Hannity? Or O'Reilly?

It's the exact same arguments Republicans are using. Perhaps you're not a liberal after all.

[clear eye]

53. Spurious attacks on DU messengers

won't win you any points.

If you really want our party to continue to prevail, you won't encourage it to do things that will enrage swing voters.

[grahamhgreen]

26. It will grant 1 trillion every 5 years to big insurance that will crush reform and remove any of the

Positive attributes in the bill.

[girl gone mad]

34. I greatly respect her opinion...

and I'm not surprised that she reached this conclusion.

[Vidar]

36. K&R.

[inna]

45. KR, but... Actually, it's MUCH worse than just "up to 8% of income":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7338574