There are currently three (3) bills in Congress that address health insurance reform: the House version and two Senate versions. One is the Baucus Bill and the other is the Ted Kennedy legacy from the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee aka "HELP". Of the three, only the Senate Finance Committee Bill ( the "Baucus Bill" ) meets Obama's criteria of not boosting the deficit or costing more than $900 billion over ten years. Actually it really doesn't but it says it does.
After the House and Senate vote on the three versions, they will go to a Conference Committee and we will probably get something that WILL increase the deficit; WILL cost at least a $ 1 trillion over the next ten years ; do nothing to reform the tort system and reduce malpractice costs; and result in raised taxes and reduced services. Here's Why.
I'm going to focus on the Baucus Bill because it is the most likely framework for what we're actually going to get because it has the broadest support and in some respects is the least bad. As I will demonstrate, that's not saying much.
1. The subsidies are too low to make insurance affordable for many middle class people. A family of three making less than $50,000 per year will have to pay up to $4,370 for a policy that still requires them to pay the first $1000 in health care costs and then just reimburses 80% of any overage. Most people in this strata are just scraping by now. They can't afford the premiums or the fines for not buying insurance.
2. It doesn't take effect until July 1, 2013. Afaic that's a good thing because it enhances the chances of repeal.
3. There is an inadequate penalty for employers of more than 50 workers who do not provide insurance coverage for their employees. There is nothing to deter them from ending insurance for their workers. Those workers would have to buy their own. Many would qualify for affordability subsidies and that would drive costs through the roof. Remember I said that: " it SAYS it reduces costs but really doesn't". ^^^ Since in most cases the penalties equal the subsidies to low and middle income workers, it is effectively a tax on hiring them. One proposed solution is to slap a tax on the ENTIRE company payroll. Just what we need ! Another disincentive for employers to hire new workers and another incentive for unions to accept lay-offs rather than agree to to givebacks. They already prefer lay-offs because in most states, laid off workers can't vote in union elections.
4. The plan contains an administrative timebomb certain to become a disaster for State budgets and also for NYC's. Under the Baucus Bill low income families could be covered under Medicaid ( partly funded by the states and partly funded by NYC); SCHIP; state insurance exchanges or a newly created " Basic Health Plan". Who qualified for what would depend on state rules and family income. Changes in income would affect eligibility. To escape the inevitable confusion and bureaucratic maze it is proposed that Medicaid be expanded. States and state taxpayers have to pay for a substantial part of that and in the case of NYC, the local taxpayers have to cover 25% of the cost.
All of the aforementioned bills contain variants of "Quality Adjusted Remaining Years". The cost of a procedure is amortized over the remaining years of Average Life Expectancy. If you're 59 and need a hip replacement that costs $100,000 that averages out to about $5,000 per year of your remaining 20 years and under QARY you'll get a new hip.. At some point there is going to be a cut-off regardless of your overall health so that if you're 79 and need that operation, your PRIVATE insurer will NOT be permitted to cover it because all the bills in one way or another will require private insurers to follow the QARY guidelines. The Bill's cuts in Medicare ASSURE you won't get one. If you have private insurance or can pay for it yourself, you probably still won't get one unless you get it overseas.. What ? How can that be ??? Because ALL doctors will be required to list ALL of their patients and ALL of their services into at least one of 7500 different diagnoses. The top 10% of doctors in each group, the ones who billed the most , will get fined and have their reimbursements reduced. Thus they will be discouraged from seeing patients who need them. Good doctors who develop good reputations will be punished for their success and NOTHING wil be done to reduce the cost of their malpractice insurance. Even patients who can afford to pay out of their own pockets won't be seen because that will almost certainly bump the doctors that see them into the "overbilling zone" where they will be fined and have their Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements reduced.
All insurers will get fined for spending too much per QARY. We will probably join Europe and Canada in banning expensive drugs like Avastin. It's a good, effective treatment for colon cancer but it costs $49,000.
Care for the elderly will be reduced and the costs on young people will be dramatically increased. The needs of the community will trump individual rights.More and more, the current generation of people under 30 is less and less likely to live better than their parents. So called Health Care Reform is just another reason why.



Reply With Quote


, I'm waiting for my Grandma to come get me because I can't drive. (I drive a stick). I have a shooting pain down my right leg that is starting where my hip meets my pelvis. They want to make sure the baby isn't in distress and that I am okay.

Bookmarks