I've been waiting a long time for some hard numbers to come out on health care reform. We finally have at least some ballpark estimates on what individual health insurance policies will cost under the various reform packages floating around Congress, courtesy of Kaiser. Find some numbers at the following link.
Health Reform Subsidy Calculator
Health care reform comes down to two things –
1) You will be forced to purchase health insurance.
2) The government will subsidize health insurance for many, on a sliding scale, according to your income.
The subsidies are basically welfare, entitlements. Welfare comes from taxes. Congress is still discussing where the taxes are going to come from, while President Obama pretends there won't be any tax increases. Obama wants to cut Medicare to offset some of the costs, and pretends that health care efficiences will pay for reform, but c'mon now, we're adults, we all know that's not true. You will also see at the above link that health care reform will dramatically increase Medicaid, which are costs to the states.
Note – Deductibles and copays are not included in the health insurance costs at the above link.
I'll refrain from further comment, for now. I'd rather hear your comments.
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
I ran some numbers at the link. The Senate Finance Committee bill comes in dead last, as expected.
It's still too early to know what, if anything, will be passed. But it is interesting that you are prepared to call anything that helps less fortunate Americans ….. welfare.
Additionally, after 8 years of never calling Bush a liar, when he lied repeatedly…..it's interesting to see how quickly you call Obama an outright liar. Just an observation.
King has not been short on criticism of Bush. Like any politician, Obama doesn't necessarily lie outright, but stretches or skews the truth to his own benefit or leaves certain things out. And honestly, I don't think Obama is simply lying, I think he's clueless about how much this is actually going to cost and also understands if he says "we need more taxes" it will tick off a lot of people and hurt Democrats at the polls. Politicians are expert at this kind of rhetoric and Bush was just as guilty as Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, etc…and Obama. As far as "change" goes, it's the same old story from the White House as far as I'm concerned.
In the Music Man there is a place where the townsfolk catch professor Harold Hill and preparatory to tarring and feathering him exhort him to admit there aint no band anywhere, and he says, "I always thought there was a band somewhere." This is the essence of every salesman and every politician; they'll promise you the moon to make a sale or get a vote – sincerely intending later on to somehow make their promises come true. That's why it's so hard to get a conviction on a charge of fraud.
Rev., If yhre government gives somebody something without making him pay for it, or making him pay full price for it, if that's not welfare, what is it?
Has anybody here given any thought to what is happening in Congress right now? The House bill numbered 3200 is dead and the Senate Finance committee accepted what Baucus wanted but Baucus worked it out so there were 4 or 5 new taxes to pay for his bill. That is just plain unconstitutional in that revenue bills must originate in the House, only Well now the House will have to accept those taxes in order for Congress to pass them.
I wonder if Oba mao even knows about the game they are playing. He is so without knowledge about so much of the Constitution that they may pull the wool over his eyes in doing what has to be done to get this Senate bill passed.
Rev, you are right about no bill being ready yet. Now do you think that we will have any idea what they are really doing before they do their trick? I haven't noticed them offering to tell us what is coming and sure enough, Oba mao promised that there would be nothing but openness coming from Congress and they are ready to pass this thing without us knowing anything about what they are doing. Transparency, pshaw. The trio, Reid, Pelosi, and Oba mao don't know what that is. They know they can't pass anything that they can accept so they are going to pass without even telling the Republicans.
Rev says, "But it is interesting that you are prepared to call anything that helps less fortunate Americans ….. welfare. "
What do you want me to call health care subsidies ? Magical fairy dust money that falls from the sky ?
Welfare (or entitlements) is exactly what the subsidies are. Are you so far gone that you can't even acknowledge the proper definitions of words ?
Roy,
Excellent point about all revenue bills having to originate in the House. I hadn't even thought of that. Article 1, Section 7 says "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
Too bad we don't have a Constitutional lawyer in the White House who can straighten the Senate out
Where is this any kind of savings, and where does it cut healthcare costs
I compared the baccus plan with my upcoming insurance, and the single person premium is
higher than the total married couple premium through Blue cross.
Bend over is all I can say
King, it is really too bad that we don't have a constitutional lawyer anywhere close to the White House but people were told that the resident of the house was such a one. LOL
Jeff, it becomes more and more obvious that cutting healthcare cost is not the goal of this bunch. They merely want to distribute the wealth so those who can't have or won't have health insurance can do so without paying too much of the cost themselves. All the noises they make don't cover up the fact that the eventual goal is single payer healthcare as soon as possible.
Less fortunate? Chortle. You mean lazy a$$es that didn't elect to finish high school or get a fat student loan and go to college like I did. Lack of motivation is not a disability, and it should not be rewarded. I still believe we should be randomly drug testing in order to receive any and all public benefits. There should be lifetime caps for welfare to the tune of maybe 2 years max.
The use of the word "welfare" by the party of no and it's supporters, like when Father Ronnie used it, is meant to be condescending and cynical. It's all a part of this holier-than-thou attitude stupid conservatives often find themselves exhibiting.
The reality is this, every commenter here is but one personal tragedy away from the need for "welfare." So spare me the phony piety.
One trillion dollars of tax monies each year are handed over to the military industrial complex…..one trillion dollars yearly to a complex that failed to protect the nation when we needed that protection most. Money for nothing. You want to talk "welfare"? …..Start there.
So if we abolish DoD and put them all out of business they'd all have to go on – whatever you call government giveaways to the unemployed, but while they're doing what they're told to do by whoever is in charge of the country it's welfare, because you don't approve of national defense; an interesting study in political correctness.
Rev sez (over and over again) "The reality is this, every commenter here is but one personal tragedy away from the need for "welfare."
You mention this theme in a lot of your posts, but I don't understand how that justifies just another wealth transfer system and more government involvement in our lives.
Welfare has grown beyond it's original intent, as do all programs created and managed by the government. Originally created as part of Social Security in 1935 (where supplemental income (AFDC) was given to families where children were deprived of one parent). The Welfare Dependency Industry (similar to your rants on the Military Industrial Complex) has now expanded to include (2004 data(*A)):
300,300,000 – Medicaid recipients
39,839,000 – Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients
34,012,000 – Earned Income Tax Credit recipients
30,993,000 – Food Stamp recipients
29,844,000 – Subsidized Housing recipients
14,067,000 – Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
11,854,000 – Child Care recipients
8,469,000 – Head Start
7,007,000 – Jobs and Training
To fund these benefits, Per Capita spending has risen from $500 in 1970 to over $2000 in 2005. I'm pretty sure we have only increased that spending since 2005.
The notion that adding an even larger entitlement than Medicaid to the mix of social benefits and the audacity to saythat such an action will be "deficit neutral (*B)" as claimed by the Obama administration is completely laughable and unsupported by facts.
We are already leveraged beyond our means. The health care system could certainly benefit from incremental reforms. The plans under consideration by the Democratic legislature are simply aimed at more transfer of wealth and more government control in our lives.
*(A) Source: Welfare Reform – The US Experience – Robert Moffitt
http://www.ifau.se/upload/pdf/se/2008/wp08-13.pdf
*(B) Source: Setting the Record Straight, Comments by HHS Kathleen Sebelius.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/falseattacks
Roy, that`s good…..Oba mao. Original and yet funny. I like it! It always makes me laugh to read/hear Oba mao is a communist, socialist, Nazi. A veritable cornucopia of mindless, ignorant, dribble from the right.
Jeff,
That's just what I've been thinking. The Baucus plan, which seems to be the favored one at the moment, will also cost me about the same as what I'm paying now.
Unless I stop working, then I'll get it for free. Reverse incentive.
Rev,
Regardless of your personal biases and political spin about the word "welfare" …….
"Welfare" is EXACTLY the correct word to describe the health care subsidies, according to the definition of that word. That's why I used it.
Welfare is NOT the correct word to describe our military. Not even close.
You're becoming more of a loon by the day, Rev. I hope you're alright.
Health insurance is coverage so that one day if you need health care you'd be covered. You will not be covered if your private insurance company decides because of some pre exisiting condition they will not pay for treatment. You might not be covered if you are on a private insurance co. when they don't have to follow state laws for coverage. Private health care is not looking out for you. So I'll rather pay a little more to know I have health care waiting for me when and if I needed no matter what. If you don't force everyone to have insurance you still will have to pay for them as we are already doing now . But if you want to guess the dollars take a look at other countries and you know we are the most expensive.
I also find it odd you are worried about a cut in GOVERNMENT RUN health care medicare ?
But the cuts he proposes is so we can save money. I thought you be happy he is cutting the fat ..you cant win with a conservative they will argue against anything even if it goes against what they believe in .
Fred, I have bee reading Red State blog a lot lately and the Oba mao is someting that one of their writers uses a lot. I really got a kick out of it and decided to start using it often.
The man may not be a communist but as a real hardline community organizer he is sure as hell as close as one can get without being all the way to communism. That makes him a somewhat misunderstanding socialist.
Andrea, I guess you will never understand that public option is nothing but the first step toward government control of health care. I will keep trying to get you to understand and someday when it is too late maybe you will see what that thing really is. It sounds so good for the 20% of people who don't have insurance that they don't manage to see it. Also, most socialists can't see beyond the real truth about it.
N.E……why is it necessary to go off the rails with your evaluation of my comment? I didn't say anything about ending the DOD. I said….when it comes to welfare, the defense boys are the biggest on the block. Yet, conservatives ignore that and choose to pick on the poor, the weak and the vulnerable, instead. I don't find any appeal in that.
The irreverent one says about every person being one catastrophe away…."I don't understand how that justifies just another wealth transfer system and more government involvement in our lives."
That's your characterization. What has happened for the last 30 years is a "wealth transfer system" alright….. by our government oligarchy. The richest have benefitted the most. Want to argue that point? The last 8 years have brought the largest giveaway to those same rich in history PLUS a gutting of middle class jobs, again, for the sake of the rich. On top of those disasters, corporate health insurers and big pharma are economically raping Americans AND the government….and doing it so obscenely that it threatens the country's economic future.
If the government doesn't intervene in the health care issue, there is no future.
I would also question your 300,300,000 Medicaid number….must be a misprint.
Finally….you choose to believe, as King does, that you know better than those who say the health care reform bill will be revenue neutral. It may be because of conservative conspiracy nonsense that Obama and the Democrats are out to destroy the country, for some as yet, unclear reason. It may not be.
One more thing…
Passing legislation that will enable most Americans to see a doctor when they don't now because they can't afford it…..is called "more government control in our lives." I mean, my goodness. What robotic ideologues.
Rev says, "Finally….you choose to believe, as King does, that you know better than those who say the health care reform bill will be revenue neutral"
I didn't say anything about the health care bill not being revenue neutral. You're making things up again. I only pointed out that taxes will have to be raised to pay for it.
Andrea says, "I also find it odd you are worried about a cut in GOVERNMENT RUN health care medicare ?"
I'm not worried about it, I'm just pointing it out. I like to point out the facts. The question is, why aren't YOU worried about it ? When Bush tried much smaller Medicare cuts, the Democrats went crazy, acting like Bush was killing senior citizens. Yet, now, when Obama is proposing much larger cuts than Bush ever did, not a peep from Democrats, not a peep from liberals. Y'all even defend Obama. Seems fairly hypocritical to me.
I'm going to go easy on ya' here, King.
What does revenue neutral mean? Doesn't it mean that there will not be any borrowing of money by the federal government? Another way to state it would be that the reform plan will pay for itself.
If that's so…and I'm certain that it is…..then why would taxes have to be raised? What would they be raised for? I anxiously await your answer.
I posted this at Ask a Celebrity…….probably would go better here…..
this from Forbes……
The Obama plan will also bar insurance companies from refusing to cover people based on pre-existing conditions (either by not offering them coverage outright or by charging ludicrous premiums). The insurance companies have no problem with this, so long as everyone is required to have insurance to stop people from staying uninsured until the day after they're seriously ill.
The mandate that everyone be insured is a sticking point for some on the left and on the right. I'm sympathetic to those who believe, as Obama did in the primaries, that it's basically unenforceable, and I also sympathize with freedom lovers who think it's a bit nanny-statish. But if we're willing to subsidize purchases for those who can't afford to buy insurance, and the insurance industry is willing to end rescission and stop refusing to cover people who are already sick, then this is a good deal both for society and the shareholders of publicly traded health companies. The mandate isn't a slippery slope toward socialized medicine, it's more like a subsidy for industry, and that's probably why the insurers don't mind it.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/14/health-care-aetna-opinions-columnists-michael-maiello.html
Thanks for going easy on me, Rev. lol. You're killin' me here. God, how can you be so out of touch ? There are hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes in the Baucus bill that the CBO just scored.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7016631967?Congressional%20Budget%20Office:%20Final%20Baucus%20Bill%20Covers%2094%20Percent%20Of%20Americans,%20Costs%20$829%20Billion
Wake up and smell the coffee, buddy.
walter,
One correction. The Senate bill that was just scored by the CBO won't cover everybody. It will only cover about 25 million, a little more than half the uninsured. We still won't have universal coverage.
New taxes on whom, King? And in what form?
It doesn't matter. My point was, taxes will be levied. You are exposed as the liar, AGAIN.
King sez……."Health care reform comes down to two things –
1) You will be forced to purchase health insurance.
insurance companies wanted the part about being forced to buy health insurance….it's a subsidy for them
Yes sir. They sure do.
But it's not a "subsidy" for the insurance companies. It's revenue.