(This is a copy of a note I posted to facebook earlier today as I was researching the health reform legislation.)
As we've all heard, one of the things this reform does is to prohibit those deep-pocketed insurance companies from imposing limits on coverage of pre existing conditions. And they will now have to accept anyone who applies for coverage, no questions asked.
Now everyone has to purchase coverage (or will, as of some future date). If you work for a large employer, they have to offer it or pay a penalty. If you work for a small employer or you're self employed, you have to purchase the coverage for yourself. The penalty if you don't? $95. That's annually. Yep $95 per year. So the young healthy person has a choice, pay several hundred $ per month for insurance coverage or pay a $95 penalty once a year.
If I'm that young healthy person and I know that if I ever got really sick I could get coverage any time, I'm going to take my chances and pay $95 per year.
Now what do you think is going to happen to the cost PER PERSON for the folks who are covered?
To be continued...
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Response to President Obama's Health Care Speech
This is a duplicate of the note I posted on my facebook page:
Let me preface this by saying these are my own views and not necessarily the views of my company. I have a general disclaimer on my profile, but because this hits "close to home" I feel the need to repeat it here.
For those who missed it, the text of the speech can be found here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/15/politics/main5090277.shtml
1. Agreed. We HAVE to do something to help our uninsured. To me this is nothing less than a moral obligation for a company with our size and wealth compared to the rest of the world.
2. The numbers. I'm not convinced the proposed changes are going to happen quickly enough to achieve the kind of savings he is talking about. Is he even TALKING to any actuaries?
And then, seriously, 900 billion is supposed to equal recent tax cuts on the "wealthiest Americans"? I'm curious as to what income level puts a family in that category? Be prepared, it may be MUCH lower than any of us "middle class" Americans thinks.
On the other hand, I've always known #1 would cost, and we as a country have to bear that cost one way or another. We just need to be honest about who is paying for it, and not say that it is just "the wealthiest Americans" when it is more likely the "wealthiest" 80% or so.
3. I did not appreciate his dig against insurance companies. For months AHIP, the health insurance association, has been saying exactly what he proposed, that if there is an individual mandate there would be no need for the pre-existing conditions exclusions that currently exist. Yet the way he said it, it was as if he was "forcing" this upon the industry, as if health insurers are the adversaries. AHIP, under a different form, was adversarial towards "Hillary Care" but they have taken a different stance this time, SINCE BEFORE THE ELECTION, and have endeavored to be partners on this. It may score political points in a speech to paint insurance companies as the enemy, but it's dishonest, or at least disingenuous. This is not "speaking plainly" to the American public.
For more on AHIP's Campaign for an American Solution, click here: http://www.americanhealthsolution.org/
4. There was not enough meat. I still don't know what the proposed Health Reform Bill DOES. I know there is a public option, which I was unsure about previously, but that's about the only thing I know tonight that I didn't know this morning.
Let me preface this by saying these are my own views and not necessarily the views of my company. I have a general disclaimer on my profile, but because this hits "close to home" I feel the need to repeat it here.
For those who missed it, the text of the speech can be found here: http://www.cbsnews.com/sto
1. Agreed. We HAVE to do something to help our uninsured. To me this is nothing less than a moral obligation for a company with our size and wealth compared to the rest of the world.
2. The numbers. I'm not convinced the proposed changes are going to happen quickly enough to achieve the kind of savings he is talking about. Is he even TALKING to any actuaries?
And then, seriously, 900 billion is supposed to equal recent tax cuts on the "wealthiest Americans"? I'm curious as to what income level puts a family in that category? Be prepared, it may be MUCH lower than any of us "middle class" Americans thinks.
On the other hand, I've always known #1 would cost, and we as a country have to bear that cost one way or another. We just need to be honest about who is paying for it, and not say that it is just "the wealthiest Americans" when it is more likely the "wealthiest" 80% or so.
3. I did not appreciate his dig against insurance companies. For months AHIP, the health insurance association, has been saying exactly what he proposed, that if there is an individual mandate there would be no need for the pre-existing conditions exclusions that currently exist. Yet the way he said it, it was as if he was "forcing" this upon the industry, as if health insurers are the adversaries. AHIP, under a different form, was adversarial towards "Hillary Care" but they have taken a different stance this time, SINCE BEFORE THE ELECTION, and have endeavored to be partners on this. It may score political points in a speech to paint insurance companies as the enemy, but it's dishonest, or at least disingenuous. This is not "speaking plainly" to the American public.
For more on AHIP's Campaign for an American Solution, click here: http://www.americanhealths
4. There was not enough meat. I still don't know what the proposed Health Reform Bill DOES. I know there is a public option, which I was unsure about previously, but that's about the only thing I know tonight that I didn't know this morning.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Presidential Proposals
Just in case anyone is really reading this, I thought I'd post a brief summary of the presidential health care proposals. This is off the top of my head, and comes mostly from a professional meeting I attended this week. The speakers were campaign workers for each candidate.
Obama's plan: Obama's plan is NOT universal health insurance, as some have stated. If you have health insurance already, great, you can keep it. The "national plan" that Obama is proposing is not intended to cover everyone, but to give the uninsured an opportunity to purchase comprehensive coverage at an affordable price.
There are other things, changing laws which might help reduce the cost of prescription drugs, setting up a new government agency to oversee the whole thing, subsidies for the poor or those whose coverage is very expensive due to pre-existing conditions, etc., mandated coverage for children, etc.
My beef with Obama's plan? He contends this is all going to save us money. When questioned on this point, the representative stated that the prescription drug savings would be the source of the savings. OK, she said "A" source, but she didn't offer up any alternatives. IS HE SERIOUS? When is the last time a government agency was created and American taxpayers SAVED money?
I liked a lot of the Obama plan. But I wish he would be up front with us about the true cost, and how he intends to fund this thing.
McCain's Plan: McCain's plan does NOT do away with employer sponsored health plans, as some have suggested. NOR does it take away the tax favored status of such plans. It does change the way the tax status is handled. By making it a tax CREDIT, those with employer sponsored coverage may well take home less in their paychecks, but at the end of the year they would owe less in taxes. Surely the withholding tables would be adjusted to fix this. I venture that many people currently covered would see little change, although some of us would find ourselves paying taxes on a portion of that premium that is currently sheltered.
McCain also expands the tax credit to folks who buy health insurance on their own. Currently, if you buy your own coverage, you only get a tax break if your premiums plus any out of pocket expenses exceed a certain percentage each year. (I think it's 7.5%, but I'm not positive.) This is a huge break to those already purchasing individual coverage, but I'm not sure it's enough to convince the "working uninsured" to purchase coverage. I mean, it basically amounts to a 15% "discount" on the cost of the coverage (assuming a 15% tax bracket) and with the cost of individual coverage being so high, is this really much of an incentive?
My take: will have to wait a day, b/c it's late and my alarm clock is going haywire and I can sense my husband's tension all the way from the other end of the house.
Obama's plan: Obama's plan is NOT universal health insurance, as some have stated. If you have health insurance already, great, you can keep it. The "national plan" that Obama is proposing is not intended to cover everyone, but to give the uninsured an opportunity to purchase comprehensive coverage at an affordable price.
There are other things, changing laws which might help reduce the cost of prescription drugs, setting up a new government agency to oversee the whole thing, subsidies for the poor or those whose coverage is very expensive due to pre-existing conditions, etc., mandated coverage for children, etc.
My beef with Obama's plan? He contends this is all going to save us money. When questioned on this point, the representative stated that the prescription drug savings would be the source of the savings. OK, she said "A" source, but she didn't offer up any alternatives. IS HE SERIOUS? When is the last time a government agency was created and American taxpayers SAVED money?
I liked a lot of the Obama plan. But I wish he would be up front with us about the true cost, and how he intends to fund this thing.
McCain's Plan: McCain's plan does NOT do away with employer sponsored health plans, as some have suggested. NOR does it take away the tax favored status of such plans. It does change the way the tax status is handled. By making it a tax CREDIT, those with employer sponsored coverage may well take home less in their paychecks, but at the end of the year they would owe less in taxes. Surely the withholding tables would be adjusted to fix this. I venture that many people currently covered would see little change, although some of us would find ourselves paying taxes on a portion of that premium that is currently sheltered.
McCain also expands the tax credit to folks who buy health insurance on their own. Currently, if you buy your own coverage, you only get a tax break if your premiums plus any out of pocket expenses exceed a certain percentage each year. (I think it's 7.5%, but I'm not positive.) This is a huge break to those already purchasing individual coverage, but I'm not sure it's enough to convince the "working uninsured" to purchase coverage. I mean, it basically amounts to a 15% "discount" on the cost of the coverage (assuming a 15% tax bracket) and with the cost of individual coverage being so high, is this really much of an incentive?
My take: will have to wait a day, b/c it's late and my alarm clock is going haywire and I can sense my husband's tension all the way from the other end of the house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
