Millions of Families Will Pay $2,100 More in Annual Health Insurance Premiums Under Senate Bill; $460 Billion in Medicare Cuts at the Heart of Health Care Legislation

The Growing Movement to Nullify National Health Care

December 11, 2009

Campaign for Liberty - In response to what some opponents see as a Congress that doesn't represent their interests, State Legislators are looking to the nearly forgotten American political tradition of nullification as a way to reject any potential national health care program that may be coming from Washington.

In 2010, residents of Arizona will be voting on a State Constitutional Amendment that would let them effectively opt out of any proposed national health care plan. Legislatures in Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are also considering similar State Constitutional Amendments.

And now, Missouri is joining them. According to a report in The Missourian, "Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O'Fallon, pre-filed a bill Dec. 1 that, if approved by voters, would effectively put a halt on any national health care legislation. Davis said her intent was to give voters a way to protect themselves."

The bill, HJR48, "proposes a constitutional amendment which would prohibit compelling a person to participate in any health care system." It states:

"To preserve the freedom of citizens of this state to provide for their health care, no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly or through penalties or fines, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services. Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person's options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule"...

Millions of Families Will Pay $2,100 More in Annual Health Insurance Premiums Under Senate Bill

December 1, 2009

CSNews.com – For millions of American families, the cost of health insurance premiums will increase $2,100 a year under the Democratic health care bill now being debated in the U.S. Senate. That’s according to an analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JTO).

The CBO-JCT analysis of Sen. Harry Reid’s bill found that people buying their own health insurance policies on government-run exchanges – as they will be required to do if they lack coverage through work -- will see their premiums increase by up to 13 percent in 2016, the year in which the Senate bill takes full effect.

For people purchasing their own insurance on government-run exchanges:

"Average premiums per policy …in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law."

Put another way, under Reid’s bill, a family in 2016 would pay $15,200 for an insurance plan, up $2,100 from the $13,100 they currently pay.

Costs would not go up for everyone who buys their own insurance: The CBO analysis says about 57 percent of the individuals purchasing their own insurance “would receive government subsidies that would reduce their costs” below what they’re paying now.

The subsidies, on average, “would cover nearly two-thirds of the total premium,” the analysis said. (The Senate bill would subsidize the purchase of insurance policies for individuals and families with incomes between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level.)

But the other 43 percent who do not qualify for federal subsidies would end up paying higher premiums.

CBO and JCT estimated that roughly 23 million people would purchase their own coverage through government-run exchanges in the year 2016 -- and roughly 5 million of those people would not receive federal subsidies.

Further, the CBO analysis assumes that employers will continue providing health insurance for their workers rather than pay a government fine for failing to provide coverage.

But what if that doesn’t happen? If people who now have insurance through their employers are forced out of their plans -- because their bosses would rather pay a fine than pay for insurance – many more Americans would have to buy their own individual policies – and many of them presumably would not qualify for federal subsidies.

The CBO-JCT analysis says most people who get their insurance through their jobs would not notice much change in their premiums under the Reid bill, although in many cases the premiums would be slightly lower.

But the CBO-JCT analysis also noted that the Senate bill would impose an excise tax on “high-value” employment-based policies...

Senate Democrats Reach Tentative Deal on Public Option in Health Care Bill

December 8, 2009

McClatchy Newspapers — Senate Democratic negotiators said Tuesday that they'd tentatively agreed to a compromise plan that could alter the government-run option in their health care bill, a bid to win key moderates who've threatened to derail the effort.

Though he wouldn't offer details, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said late Tuesday that there was a "broad agreement" how to proceed. Several alternative scenarios are being sent to the Congressional Budget Office for further analysis, and Democratic leaders maintained that all could be defined as some kind of public option.

The Tuesday evening announcement came hours after the Senate dealt with the other major sticking point for the $848 billion, 10 year plan to overhaul the nation's health care system. By a 54-45 vote, senators rejected a bid by anti-abortion lawmakers to put strict limits on federal abortion funding.

That left the government-run plan, pushed hard by Democratic leaders and designed as a competitor to private insurers, as the bill's lone major flashpoint. A group of 10 senators has been meeting privately to try to reach an accord.

Those senators have centered on expanding Medicare so that people near retirement age, from 55 to 64 years old, could qualify for coverage if their employers don't offer coverage. Medicare now covers people over 65 and some with disabilities.

In addition, negotiators have seriously discussed having the federal government oversee and perhaps negotiate details of some plans offered by private companies.

The negotiators have also considered having a government-run plan as a backup if the new system doesn't meet key goals, such as near-universal coverage and better affordability.

At least four Democratic moderates are wary of a government-run plan, saying it could be costly and expand government's reach, but they want to make coverage more affordable and available, so that plan is expected to win their backing.

Liberals think the public plan is a more effective way of achieving those goals, and expanding Medicare would provide some movement in that direction. Not everyone was immediately pleased, however.

"I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis. "We need to have some competition for the insurance industry to keep rates down and save taxpayer dollars."

Democrats control 60 of the Senate's 100 seats, exactly enough to cut off debate. If enough Democrats, and perhaps a moderate Republican or two, vote for the new proposal, it could pass by Christmas.

Top senators would then enter into compromise talks with House of Representatives leaders — and the House measure, passed last month, does include a government-run public option.

Because of Tuesday's vote, the Senate health care bill continues to allow health plans the option of covering elective abortions. If abortions are covered, the plan must establish separate accounts with private funds to pay for them...

Senate Passes Coverage for Mammograms, Cuts in Medicare

December 3, 2009

AP - Passing a critical test, Senate Democrats closed ranks yesterday behind $460 billion in politically risky Medicare cuts at the heart of health care legislation, thwarting a Republican attempt to doom President Obama’s sweeping overhaul.

The Senate also approved safeguards for coverage of mammograms, requiring insurance plans to cover the breast cancer screening test in an array of preventive measures and essentially wiping out a federal advisory committee recommendation to defer routine mammograms until women reach the age of 50.

The day’s votes were the first since the Senate’s health care debate began Monday and demonstrated the ability of Democrats to move ahead in the face of implacable Republican opposition.

The bid by the bill’s critics to reverse cuts to the popular Medicare program failed on a vote of 58 to 42, drawing the support of two Democratic defectors and all Republicans. Approval would have stripped out money needed to help pay for expanding coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans and would have sent the entire 2,074-page bill back to the Senate Finance Committee for a redo.

AARP, the seniors’ lobby, supported the 10-year package of cuts in projected spending, giving Democrats political cover for their decision to pare back subsidies to private Medicare plans as well as payments to hospitals, hospices, home health agencies, and other providers.

Democrats said seniors will not lose any guaranteed benefits and contended that the cuts - amounting to a 2 percent slowdown in spending - will help keep Medicare solvent by making it more efficient.

“My colleagues on the Republican side have resorted to the politics of fear to preserve a broken health care system,’’ said Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa.

Republicans disagreed vigorously, saying that seniors in the popular Medicare Advantage private plans will lose benefits and predicting that lawmakers will ultimately back away from the cuts, once seniors start feeling the brunt.

“Medicare is already in trouble. The program needs to be fixed, not raided to create another new government program,’’ said the party’s leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

The Medicare vote went to the heart of seniors’ concerns that cuts to the program would undermine the quality of their care.

Furious with opposition from AARP, Senator John McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee who pushed the bid to halt the cuts, delivered a message to seniors:

“Take your AARP card, cut it in half and send it back. They’ve betrayed you.’’

In the end, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and James Webb of Virginia were the only Democrats to support McCain’s proposal.

The first votes yesterday were held under a special agreement requiring 60 votes to prevail. The margin was also close on the women’s health amendment, which passed 61 to 39.

Though Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate, two voted against the provision by Democrat Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Republican Olympia J. Snowe of Maine: Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Nelson.

The measure was saved by three Republicans voting in favor - Snowe, David Vitter of Louisiana, and Susan M. Collins of Maine.

We Know How this Healthcare Debate Ends, Or Do We?

November 29, 2009

The New Republic - On Monday, the full Senate will begin deliberations over the [healthcare] bill Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced before Thanksgiving. And the ultimate resolution of that process wouldn't seem to be in much doubt.

Republicans will do whatever they can to drag out the debate. But unless political circumstances change drastically, they probably will not succeed in stopping reform altogether. Instead, the Senate will vote for a bill, work out its differences with the House, and send legislation to the White House for the president to sign.

But the debate that unfolds over the next few weeks will be full of drama--and not just the manufactured kind. While it's hard to imagine opponents of reform stopping a bill from passing., it's not at all hard to imagine the opponents of reform drastically altering the bill before it goes forward.

You can look forward to amendments on abortion, immigration, employer responsibility, tort reform--amendments that plenty of more conservative Democrats will find hard to resist, out of either principle or political necessity, even as they further alienate the left...

To be clear, you can count me among those convinced that health care legislation will never be repealed--that, once enacted, it will become a permanent part of the American social welfare state, something people cherish. But along the way to implementation, a lot of bad things can happen to the new system, not to mention the lawmakers who championed it.

The key for the next few weeks, as the Senate debate moves forward, is figuring out how to minimize that danger. And that alone should create plenty of drama.

The Medical Road to Serdom

November 30, 2009

Campaign for Liberty - ...Another illusory truth is the concept that a government takeover of medicine will lower costs for health insurance. Every estimate of health insurance premiums so far by the Congressional Budget Office shows that they premiums will go up substantially. The current $12,400 average price of a family insurance policy will rise to about $20,000. How can the politicians state that costs will go down? Because the "worst always rise to the top" and this explains Congressional approval ratings routinely in the low teens.

In addition, costs will also go up $500 billion for American taxpayers as they are asked to "subsidize" the cost of overpriced health insurance for others (wealth transfer) -- entitlement recipients that the democrats hope to turn into their permanent voting block.

The very medical devices and drugs patients need will be taxed billions, making them less available and stifling new treatments.

True costs are hidden as taxes start immediately and government spending ("benefits") starts in 2014! The $235 billion doctor pay fix for Medicare is not counted! So much for President Obama's promise not to not raise the deficit one dime -- debt that our children will owe to China.

Finally, each citizen is taxed if they don't buy health insurance -- breaking the promise not to tax anyone if they make less than $250,000. They will also face five years of jail time for failure to buy "government approved" insurance, and pay the tax according to the 11/5 letter by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

The end of lifetime limits on medical benefits from health insurance that is promised on page 16 of the Senate bill 3590 is broken two sentences later when it is revealed that certain covered benefits can have a limit. The concept that there will be no denial of pre-existing conditions is broken when it is realized that this is only true for plans that cover "essential benefits" defined by the unelected Secretary of Health and Human Services (page 103). If you want a plan that covers something not approved by this one person -- then you can be denied.

Complaints occur that "rationing" exists in the current system (when people don't have insurance) and speculation that somehow the government can ration more fairly. Yet the rationing to come under the supervision of the "expert panels" has never been seen on such a scale in our country before. It does exist in Europe where a cold calculation of a "quality adjusted life year" is used to deny life saving breast cancer drugs because they exceed the government approved cost of $45,000...