Krugman: Republicans misreading the polling on repealing HCR

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

December 28, 2009, 5:27 pm
What not to run on

Republicans, it seems, are going to run on repealing health care reform. Bad call. They are, I believe, misreading the polling.

It’s true that the health care bill is unpopular. But as many people have pointed out, a significant fraction of those who say they disapprove of the bill disapprove from the left. And more generally, answers to the question “Do you approve of the Senate bill?” are not the same as answers to the question, “Do you want to roll back what’s in the bill?”

Consider Massachusetts. As I’ve pointed out in the past, the MA health reform has low approval ratings — yet 79 percent of the state’s voters want the reform to continue.

There doesn’t seem to be any comparable polling for the national reform. But Kaiser Family Foundation polling suggests that there may be a similar phenomenon at the national level:



...snip...

...snip...

That said, Democrats can believe strange things too. The idea that NAFTA was a big plus for Clinton, coming from Rahm Emanuel of all people, is just too bone-headed for words. Even the timing is totally wrong: NAFTA came before the 1994 disaster.

Health reform, thank heavens, isn’t like NAFTA. It will probably help Democrats, for two reasons: first, because people won’t want it reversed, and second, because this time Democrats actually got something done. My sense about 1994 is that at least one piece of the problem was the sense of Clinton as a hapless incompetent, with the failure of HCR as a key part of the narrative. At least Obama won’t have that problem.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

[dkf]

1. If Bob Herbert's read on it is true, I might be falling from the

"won't make much of a difference" into the "worse off" category.

I really don't need a 40% tax on my health care. But if I need to pay close to $9000 a year, I do expect minimal out of pocket costs.

[flpoljunkie]

4. The excise tax is paid by the insurance company on the amount above the $23,000 family or $8,500

individual threshold with higher thresholds for retired individuals age 55 and older and those in risky occupations, etc. See below. (The average family policy was $13,375 in 2009. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm)

Here's the skinny from Kaiser:

The Senate leadership bill

Impose an excise tax on insurers of employer-sponsored health plans with aggregate values that exceed $8,500 for individual coverage and $23,000 for family coverage (these threshold values will be indexed to the consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U) plus one percentage point). The threshold amounts will be increased for retired individuals age 55 and older who are not eligible for Medicare and for employees engaged in high-risk professions by $1,350 for individual coverage and $3,000 for family coverage. In the 17 states with the highest health care costs, the threshold amount is increased by 20% initially; this increase is subsequently reduced by half each year until it is phased out in 2015. The tax is equal to 40% of the value of the plan that exceeds the threshold amounts and is imposed on the issuer of the health insurance policy, which in the case of a self-insured plan is the plan administrator or, in some cases, the employer. The aggregate value of the health insurance plan includes reimbursements under a flexible spending account for medical expenses (health FSA) or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), employer contributions to a health savings account (HSA), and coverage for dental, vision, and other supplementary health insurance coverage. (Effective January 1, 2013)

(Do hope insurance companies will find themselves subject to more strict regulations as this program moves forward. I think that is inevitable, as they will, no doubt, try to evade and go around the regulations that are already in the bill.)

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. Which is a way to kill these plans off. The insurance companies will simply stop offering them

Do you really think the insurers and/or employers if they self insure are going to continue to offer plans like that? Who knew that reform would result in gutting and eliminating the good plans out there?

[flpoljunkie]

8. These expensive policies offer far more than the national norm. Is that fair to others?

I don't see why Goldman Sachs executives should get tax-free $40,000 health insurance coverage.

I also read somewhere that the average union member insurance policy cost was in the range of the national average. So, who's getting the $23,000 plus insurance coverage?

[dkf]

6. Yes, so my coverage will deteriorate year by year to keep me

under the cost threshold.

More copays, higher deductibles, with an $8,500 yearly premium.

Thanks a lot.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

12. Let's regroup here...

Does your TOTAL insurance benefit -- premiums and copays paid by your employer -- come to more than $23,000 (assuming you have family coverage)? If it doesn't, the tax doesn't effect you.

For example. My family coverage is paid half by me and half by my employer. I pay my own co-pays. That means my benefit is about $4,500 per year. I'm nowhere NEAR the trigger for taxability.

And remember that what gets taxed is the amount OVER $23,000 -- not the entire amount.

[mzmolly]

15. Thanks for the info

Jeff. :hi:

[mkultra]

16. i have awsome insurance

with total commitment from both equaling a little over $12K for family. Anyone paying more than $23K must be getting some incredible coverage.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

17. To be honest, I can't figure out how you get $23K in benefits.

Assuming family premiums are $15K per year (medical, dental, vision, pets?) and even with a high deductible that's ALL paid by the employer, it's hard to get to that level.

I'd like to know if anybody outside a corporate executive receives these benefits. I've been told that union workers have them, but I find that a little hard to believe. My siblings are union, and they don't have anything like this.

[emulatorloo]

20. excellent info - thanks

[mzmolly]

14. Thanks for the good info in this thread

flpoljunkie. :hi:

[Clio the Leo]

2. And the recent uptick in favorability for the bill, the President and Congres...

..... seems to support this idea. The notion that a lot of "opponents" were actually disgruntled liberals is always the one I've presumed to be the case. As the bill struggled, popularity for it went down which seems to be the opposite of what you'd expect if most opponents actually wanted NO bill. When the bill reached another milestone, support went up.

If the GOP is literally banking on the notion that most Americans DONT want health care reform, then it only serves to prove one thing I've long suspected ..... I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, but I'm smarter than the average Republican. :)

[KansDem]

3. Hey! What happened in the August to September timeframe?

"Better off" jumped up 8% while "Worse off" went down 8%.

Anyone care to venture a guess? I wonder if "strong public option" was being touted during this time?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Sarah Palin opened her big yapper. Those were the "death panel" days. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Congress returned so top HCR stories were process rather than town-hall rants

and there was a little (belated) media push-back against the most extreme pug claims.

[Beetwasher]

7. Oh, Yes They Are! That AND Other Things!!!

They are misreading the publics' mood and they are attacking Obama on the terror thing. That's a big no no. They never learn. Thank goodness!

[ieoeja]

11. NAFTA *was* a big plus for Clinton.

His campaign chest was overflowing with money from the multi-nationals.

One must always remember the DLC definitions of "good", "winning", etc. Sort of like the outgoing DNC chairman, Terry McAuliffe, bragging about our "victory" in 2004. The DNC collected more money than the RNC. Sure, we lost the presidency and seats in both the House and Senate. And got our asses handed to us in state legislative and gubernatorial races. But we collected more money! That's a win, baby!

[mzmolly]

13. Those numbers will only

improve.

[damntexdem]

18. Impossible! That assumes that Republicans read!

But they surely are going to campaign on the HCR bill that passes -- or rather, on what they claim it to be.

[opihimoimoi]

19. GOP...is DESPERATELY SEEKING SURVIVAL they be on the ropes and reeling