[quote=Associated Press via Google News]Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.
Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help cover the cost for millions of people.
Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that's how it works.
Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that federal employees have.
"You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Obama said. "And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket."
And that's not all.
Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.
"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."
A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.
It could be a long wait.
"There's no question premiums are still going to keep going up," said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. "There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today."
The statistics Obama based his claims on come from two sources. In both cases, the caveats got left out.
A report for the Business Roundtable, an association of big company CEOs, was the source for the claim that employers could save $3,000 per worker on health care costs, the White House said.
Issued in November, the report looked generally at proposals that Democrats were considering to curb health care costs, concluding they had the potential to significantly reduce future increases.
But the analysis didn't consider specific legislation, much less the final language being tweaked this week. It's unclear to what degree the bill that the House is expected to vote on within days would reduce costs for employers.
An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest.
It found that large employers would see premium savings of at most 3 percent compared with what their costs would have been without the legislation. That would be more like a few hundred dollars instead of several thousand.
The claim that people buying coverage individually would save 14 percent to 20 percent comes from the same budget office report, prepared in November for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. But the presidential sound bite fails to convey the full picture.
The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation. That's mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.
For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now.
The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.
Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.
The president usually alludes to that distinction in his health care stump speech, saying the savings would accrue to those people who continue to buy "comparable" coverage to what they have today.
But many of his listeners may not pick up on it.
"People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now," said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. "If they did buy the same value plans ... the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure."[/quote]
[url]http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVn9wrhB-3SF-Svo9kZyXd4bHRLAD9EG84VO0[/url]
*Looks below* Why would Obama wast time here when he's suppose to be working on this health care bill? Either that poster is a fake, or Obama just made himself look a bit lazier. (He had to post pone a trip twice already.)
High taxes or human life being saved?
Fuck the poor I want to keep my money.
But seriously, I say it's worth the extra money to give health care to 30 million more Americans.
People want social services, but they want low taxes and expect the government to "Create" money, then when the government doesn't, they get angry that there's no such thing as economic magic.
uhm... the article still says it will drop, just not as much.
Well this is outrageous I can't beli...
Oh wait...
Glaber Post.
Back to your homes people.
I don't want to pay for some other guy's health insurance.
[QUOTE=Wonky;20810004]High taxes or human life being saved?[/QUOTE]
HR3200 isn't going to save any lives. Stop for a second and read it. It's a piece of shit, anyone who wants socialized healthcare should be against this stupid bill.
Glaber didn't read his article carefully again.
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=136593&dateline=1268756304[/img]
Bill's still not good as it could have been though. Nothing more than regulating an private system at this point, not a true overhaul, and the crap will continue to get worse. Lost opportunity.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;20810123]People want social services, but they want low taxes and expect the government to "Create" money, then when the government doesn't, they get angry that there's no such thing as economic magic.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that if taxes go too high then more people are in poverty. That shouldn't be a product of socialized health care. They need a real plan to control costs while providing a public option for those who need it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;20810805]The problem is that if taxes go too high then more people are in poverty. That shouldn't be a product of socialized health care. They need a real plan to control costs while providing a public option for those who need it.[/QUOTE]
Right, because, money can come out of nowhere. Higher taxes do not lead to higher poverty, what the fuck are you on? Look at some of the countries that have high, high taxes? Lots of poverty? Not really. High standard of living? Yes.
[editline]02:13AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=MercZ;20810713]Glaber didn't read his article carefully again.
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=136593&dateline=1268756304[/img]
Bill's still not good as it could have been though. Nothing more than regulating an private system at this point, not a true overhaul, and the crap will continue to get worse. Lost opportunity.[/QUOTE]
Oh, this bill sucks shit, it's terrible, but the fact is, it doesn't matter what was in the bill, it wouldn't get through without some underhanded shit, because, Republicans will filibuster just because they can/getting paid to be douchebags.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;20811771]Right, because, money can come out of nowhere. Higher taxes do not lead to higher poverty, what the fuck are you on? Look at some of the countries that have high, high taxes? Lots of poverty? Not really. High standard of living? Yes.
[/QUOTE]
What the hell are you smoking? High taxes =/= a high standard of living. A country with a high tax rate has to be spending the tax money [i]properly[/i]
[editline]04:43AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;20811771]
Oh, this bill sucks shit, it's terrible, but the fact is, it doesn't matter what was in the bill, it wouldn't get through without some underhanded shit, because, Republicans will filibuster just because they can/getting paid to be douchebags.[/QUOTE]
They are trying to get it passed without Republican support anyways. If they don't need Republican support then why do a shitty bill anyways? Do it right and [i]then[/i] pass it.
Important bits worth noticing:
[quote]The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation. That's mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.[/quote]
[quote]For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now.[/quote]
[quote]"People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now," said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. "If they did buy the same value plans ... the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure."[/quote]
Insurance will be more affordable due to tax credits, you'll be able to get a lot more coverage for the price you're paying today, and if you choose to buy the same kind of bare-bones policy many individuals currently have, you'll see reductions of 14%-20%.
Yeah, it's not a utopia of dirt-cheap health insurance, but I still fail to see how it's worse than the current system. So you're not going to be getting a huge raise due to lower insurance costs (like employers would actually do that...). Rates will still rise more slowly than they do now, individuals will save a lot of money, employer insurance would be relatively unchanged, and many policies will pick up more coverage for the same price. Still seeing nothing but benefits here.
Perhaps Obama is guilty of a few idle mistakes and a bit of overselling, but that's hardly smoking gun evidence of socialist government takeover.
[editline]01:04AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;20827911]
They are trying to get it passed without Republican support anyways. If they don't need Republican support then why do a shitty bill anyways? Do it right and [i]then[/i] pass it.[/QUOTE]
They can't really do that anymore. It'll take a reconciliation vote just to pass this, and the changes they can make in that process are somewhat limited. If they start over now, they don't have enough votes in the Senate to do ANYTHING, and then they get thrown out in November for not succeeding in any of their objectives, and then all hope of any change in the health system goes out the window for the next decade.
[editline]01:08AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;20810572]HR3200 isn't going to save any lives. Stop for a second and read it. It's a piece of shit, anyone who wants socialized healthcare should be against this stupid bill.[/QUOTE]
Uninsured people are 40% more likely to die in the emergency room than insured people. Over a hundred people die every day as a direct result of being uninsured. This bill is going to cover 30+ million people that previously didn't have insurance. You're a fucking idiot if you honestly don't think that even one person will survive who otherwise would have died.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20828206]
Uninsured people are 40% more likely to die in the emergency room than insured people. Over a hundred people die every day as a direct result of being uninsured. This bill is going to cover 30+ million people that previously didn't have insurance. You're a fucking idiot if you honestly don't think that even one person will survive who otherwise would have died.[/QUOTE]
Don't even bother arguing with Lankist. He's read the whole fucking bill cover to cover, man. What with his doctorates in law and in political science, his unerring clairvoyance, and his ability to not be a total shitposter, what chance does the average American have?
[sp]Before Lankist spends six pages asking, the bill number is HR3200![/sp] :ssh:
I can assure you all, that the Health Care Reform will be beneficial in the long run. Inevitably, disagreements arise for proposed bills. Health insurance premiums for American families continue to skyrocket. Premium costs are currently rising 3x faster than wages.
[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/by-the-numbers/3[/url]
[QUOTE=President Obama;20832986]I can assure you all, that the Health Care Reform will be beneficial in the long run. Inevitably, disagreements arise for proposed bills. Health insurance premiums for American families continue to skyrocket. Premium costs are currently rising 3x faster than wages.
[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/by-the-numbers/3[/url][/QUOTE]
Someone quick get Glenn Beck in here.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;20833014]Someone quick get Glenn Beck in here.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://southernfemalelawyer.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/glenn-beck-goes-crazy-in-radio-show-pin-head-funny-comedy.jpg[/img]
Why hasn't he been worked into one of those little flag emoticons?
[editline]12:31PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=President Obama;20832986]I can assure you all, that the Health Care Reform will be beneficial in the long run. Inevitably, disagreements arise for proposed bills. Health insurance premiums for American families continue to skyrocket. Premium costs are currently rising 3x faster than wages.
[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/by-the-numbers/3[/url][/QUOTE]
You need to establish superiority in Congress, man.
Break someone's jaw.
lol glaber
[QUOTE=yawmwen;20810805]The problem is that if taxes go too high then more people are in poverty. That shouldn't be a product of socialized health care. They need a real plan to control costs while providing a public option for those who need it.[/QUOTE]
If taxes go higher while they produce more social protection, those who would otherwise fall under the poverty line can save the money they used to spend on things that the government now gives them for "free".
Just like every old EU country has done, very few actually are "Poor" here compared to the USA and still we somehow manage to buy things.
[QUOTE=Bathacker;20833123]
You need to establish superiority in Congress, man.
[/QUOTE]
The United States Government system does not allow one branch to surpass another. This is one of the key reasons why the United States Government is successful. Indisputably, this method works best.
Make your voice heard in Washington, D.C. Call Congress now to show your support for health reform.
[url]http://advocacy.barackobama.com/healthcare/campaigns/18/call_scripts/59/call_sessions/new?source=20100319_call_FB[/url]
Why is the Obama troll making good points?
[editline]05:57PM[/editline]
wtf
[QUOTE=President Obama;20833512]This is one of the key reasons why the United States Government is successful. [/QUOTE]
Ahahahah oh wow.
[QUOTE=Bathacker;20833123][img]http://southernfemalelawyer.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/glenn-beck-goes-crazy-in-radio-show-pin-head-funny-comedy.jpg[/img]
Why hasn't he been worked into one of those little flag emoticons?
[/QUOTE]
Not that Glenn Beck I mean the gimmick account. Also wasn't there a Nixon somewhere around here?
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20828206]
Uninsured people are 40% more likely to die in the emergency room than insured people. Over a hundred people die every day as a direct result of being uninsured. This bill is going to cover 30+ million people that previously didn't have insurance. You're a fucking idiot if you honestly don't think that even one person will survive who otherwise would have died.[/QUOTE]
88% of statistics are made up. Not having insurance doesn't increase your chances of dying when you go in to a emergency room, by law a hospital can't reject anyone medical care if it is a emergency. If you die you die, not because you didn't have insurance. Its after all the care is what gets you, bills/debt.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;20839146]Not that Glenn Beck I mean the gimmick account. Also wasn't there a Nixon somewhere around here?[/QUOTE]
Richard Nixon still posts but it's not a gimmick account.
Glaber stop posting
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;20839146]Not that Glenn Beck I mean the gimmick account. Also wasn't there a Nixon somewhere around here?[/QUOTE]
I want Idi Amin's take on all of this.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20828206]
Uninsured people are 40% more likely to die in the emergency room than insured people. Over a hundred people die every day as a direct result of being uninsured. This bill is going to cover 30+ million people that previously didn't have insurance. You're a fucking idiot if you honestly don't think that even one person will survive who otherwise would have died.[/QUOTE]
I see your point, but I want to correct you since I am nit picky about this shit.
The ER will [b]never[/b] deny someone, regardless of debt or insurance. They will always take you and do what they can to keep you alive. However, if you need a certain surgery(if you had cancer, for instance), they can't do that in the ER, they have to send it to the surgical wing. That is when they check for insurance and deny you/cut you open.
[editline]11:01PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=evilking1;20833473]If taxes go higher while they produce more social protection, those who would otherwise fall under the poverty line can save the money they used to spend on things that the government now gives them for "free".
Just like every old EU country has done, very few actually are "Poor" here compared to the USA and still we somehow manage to buy things.[/QUOTE]
The problem is the USA isn't the EU. We aren't set up like you(I will assume you're European). We need to actually change a bunch of shit before we could get to the point that you guys are at.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;20839700]I see your point, but I want to correct you since I am nit picky about this shit.
The ER will [b]never[/b] deny someone, regardless of debt or insurance. They will always take you and do what they can to keep you alive. However, if you need a certain surgery(if you had cancer, for instance), they can't do that in the ER, they have to send it to the surgical wing. That is when they check for insurance and deny you/cut you open.
[editline]11:01PM[/editline]
[/QUOTE]
You can't deny the statistics show that hospitals have a clear preference for insured people. They're not going to make anything but the bare minimum investment for people that might not be able to pay them back, and as such you're a lot more likely to die. One of the root problems with our healthcare system is that it's all private business, they don't give two shits if you live or die, so long as their bottom line is profitable.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;20839700]I see your point, but I want to correct you since I am nit picky about this shit.
The ER will [b]never[/b] deny someone, regardless of debt or insurance. They will always take you and do what they can to keep you alive. However, if you need a certain surgery(if you had cancer, for instance), they can't do that in the ER, they have to send it to the surgical wing. That is when they check for insurance and deny you/cut you open.
[editline]11:01PM[/editline]
The problem is the USA isn't the EU. We aren't set up like you(I will assume you're European). We need to actually change a bunch of shit before we could get to the point that you guys are at.[/QUOTE]
When you go in for cancer, they don't send you to a "surgical wing" from the ER. Most of the time you don't even go to the ER, you make a regular doctors appointment. Then you go to see a specialist - an oncologist to be more specific. You go though tons of tests and screenings before you even head to surgery and insurance is heavy in evolved.
The ER never deny people because they can't by law.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20839778]You can't deny the statistics show that hospitals have a clear preference for insured people. They're not going to make anything but the bare minimum investment for people that might not be able to pay them back, and as such you're a lot more likely to die. One of the root problems with our healthcare system is that it's all private business, they don't give two shits if you live or die, so long as their bottom line is profitable.[/QUOTE]
Let me guess your one of the people who think hospitals are out to get you if you don't have insurance. I know for a fact emergency visits are not effected by the fact you have insurance or not. My grandma for example doesn't and has a lot of health issues that sends her to the ER. She gets normal treatment like everyone else, and she doesn't even pay her medical bills. (sickening i know, we tried to get though to her.) and the hospital knows that. But they still accept her and treat her like a paying patient.
There is no denying that they run like a business, but they run like that other wise they'll be ran to the ground. They're still not a evil corporation/business that you try and make them out to be.
[QUOTE=TheBatman;20810042]Fuck the poor I want to keep my money.
But seriously, I say it's worth the extra money to give health care to 30 million more Americans.[/QUOTE]
Gee, let's extend existing coverage to more people. The quality totally won't decrease.
Next you'll be telling me mass printing of money doesn't cause inflation. It's the same principal: you create more to cover the same value, the worth decreases. If it does that when printing money, why would "printing" (extending) health care to more people while attempting to maintain the same individual value be possible?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.