Right-wing media falsely claim that health care reform will increase premiums
Right-wing media are using an exchange between President Obama and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) to falsely claim that the Senate health care bill would cause individual health insurance premiums to increase. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate's version of health care reform would result in lower premiums for most individual enrollees.
Malkin and Klein advance falsehood that premiums would increase under health care reform
Malkin: "[Sen.] Alexander was right on CBO saying Sen bill would hike premiums." From Michelle's Malkin's Twitter account, which linked to an American Spectator blog post by Philip Klein:
Klein: CBO estimated that individual and group plans would increase under Senate health care reform bill. From Philip Klein's American Spectator blog post:
Alexander Takes on Obama on Health Care Premiums
By Philip Klein on 2.25.10 @ 11:08AM
Sen. Lamar Alexander has called out President Obama on claims that health care legislation would reduce premiums, noting that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that premiums would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher in the individual market under the Senate bill than under current law.
The CBO report, which was released in November, found that in dollar terms, an individual policy would cost $5,800 and a family policy would cost $15,200 in 2016 if the Senate bill were enacted, compared with $5,500 and $13,100 under the status quo.
During the summit this morning, Obama argued that in exchange for paying more, Americans would be getting more generous insurance coverage. But the reason is that the Senate bill would impose so many new benefit mandates on insurance policies. In a free market, individuals should be allowed to buy more expensive insurance that offers more benefits, but the problem with the liberal approach is that it would force everybody to pay more, even people who may prefer to have lower premiums and less generous coverage.
Fact: CBO found bill would actually result in lower premiums for most individual enrollees
CBO: Premiums paid by most individuals would decrease. The CBO estimated that premiums paid by a majority of people insured on the individual market would decrease when factoring in federal subsidies that are included in the bill. CBO stated, "The majority of nongroup enrollees (about 57 percent) would receive subsidies via the new insurance exchanges, and those subsidies, on average, would cover nearly two-thirds of the total premium, CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] estimate. Thus, the amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for nongroup coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average, than the nongroup premiums charged under current law." Conservative claims that the bill would increase premiums in the individual market are based on estimates that do not factor in subsidies. CBO stated that figures identical to those cited by conservatives "indicate what enrollees would pay, on average, not accounting for the new federal subsidies."
Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "CBO found health-care reform would reduce premiums." The Washington Post's Ezra Klein reported on Alexander and Obama's exchange in a February 25 post:
Lamar Alexander and Barack Obama just had a contentious exchange on this point, so it's worth settling the issue: Yes, the CBO found health-care reform would reduce premiums. The issue gets confused because it also found that access to subsidies would encourage people to buy more comprehensive insurance, which would mean that the value of their insurance would be higher after reform than before it. But that's not the same as insurance becoming more expensive: The fact that I could buy a nicer car after getting a better job suggests that cars are becoming pricier. The bottom line is that if you're comparing two plans that are exactly the same, costs go down after reform.
CNN's Velshi: "57 percent of those insured will see a government subsidy, which will bring the average premium down, actually." During CNN's coverage of the health care summit, Wolf Blitzer aired a portion of Obama's exchange with Alexander, and chief business correspondent Ali Velshi stated that Obama was "more right than Senator Alexander." Velshi stated, "The CBO, which is an independent -- independent of the political party -- says that rates will go up. But here's the reality: 57% of those insured will see a government subsidy, which will bring the average premium down, actually. It would be -- it would drive average premiums down 7 to 10 percent, but this is all based on assumptions."
Politifact: "CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease." A January 27 PolitiFact.com analysis labeled the claim that health care reform would cause premiums for most Americans to increase "pants on fire" false and stated, "The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease." From PolitiFact.com:
On Nov. 30, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, released a detailed analysis on how health insurance premiums might be affected by the Senate Democrats' health care bill. The CBO is an independent agency whose estimates for pending legislation are considered nonpartisan and rigorous.
The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease. This was especially true for people who get their insurance through work. (Health policy wonks call these the large group and small group markets.) People who have to go out and buy insurance on their own (the individual market) would see rates increase by 10 to 13 percent. But more than half of those people -- 57 percent, in fact -- would be eligible for subsidies to help them pay for the insurance. People who get subsidies would see their premiums drop by more than half, according to the CBO. So most people would see their premiums stay the same or potentially drop.
CBO: Premiums in group market will not increase. CBO estimated that the large group and small group markets make up 83 percent of the insurance market and that those premiums will not increase.
It's time to dump them, dump the senate plan, have the individual mandate, but also have a public option to keep the costs down. Also, the should be a cap for what they can charge individulas, so that the costs will be closer to group plans. In fact, really, everyone should just pay the same. That way the ins. co's have less opportunity to screw the people who get sick. These Republicans are whores and liars, and so are some of the Democrats.
----------------------------------------------------------
Insurance company's ARE problem, and forcing us to buy from them, without any meanigful caps or public options (just subsidies) is not the way to go.
I like Fedex, they do a good job compared to USPS.
Adding more bureaucracy by implementing a public option takes money away from the private sector, and out of your paycheck.
Why don't they just remove the restrictions on competition to lower rates instead?
The reason that health insurance companies are not allowed to 'compete across state lines' is that The McCarran–Ferguson Act of 1945 exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation. Instead this is left to the individual states.
If they could 'compete across state lines', a race to the bottom is set up. Say Texas (just to pick on our national laboratory for poor governance - Molly Ivins) decides to put up the laxest regulatory regime in order to get all the insurance companies to move there. Now what citizens in Ohio or New York think doesn't matter anymore. Everyone is going to get Texas rules.
I put the phrases with 'compete' in quote marks, because the reason we have a health insurance crisis is these companies DO NOT COMPETE on what matters most. Sure, they'll compete on marketing, etc.
But they act as a cartel when it comes to premium pricing and to recission...dumping their customers just when those customers need insurance. They make more money this way.
What you wingnuts need to learn (but probably never will) is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Our country is cursed by its large corporations, who have far too much power.
~
I totally support the idea of a robust public option.
It's how other countries with better systems than ours (FAR BETTER) do it.
It was carmelite with the usual gooper boiler plate that makes absolutely no sense when you examine the facts and the history that needed slapping down.
~
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
~
How could any private company compete with a government managed program that didn't adhere to the same rules as the other companies. Ask yourself how would a public option create competition? There is only one way, offer more or similar services at a lower price. Otherwise why would anyone buy into it. That begs the question, how can the public option offer lower prices with similar or lower costs?
Answer; The governemtn isn't contrained by cost, income, or profitability.
You wanna talk about a race to the bottom, how low can the government drop its prices till private companies can no longer afford to stay in business? It isn't about competition, private companies can't compete in that enviroment.
"What you wingnuts need to learn (but probably never will) is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
You may have just spoken the most idiotic words I've ever heard a progtologist utter. Come on, you think that by giving healthcare powers to the government they will act as noble protectors of our freedoms? The beauty of the corporate world is that despite how loose the regulations you place on them, despite how big they become, or how much money they make, they will never have the ability to make their consumers buy their goods. The moment you give the government the power to produce and offer goods and services is the moment they get the power to force you to use those goods and services.
Those powers are built into the bill penalizing people for not offering healthcare, taxing people who have plans that aren't the governments. It is the government forcing you to buy a service. You obviously haven't thought this through.
I don't know about the rest of you, but giving the government the power to make me buy something is about as ass backwards as anything I've ever hear.
*sigh*
And somebody is lying if they think that FedEx could do what the USPS does and even come close to turning a profit. Somebody like dave.
~
This whole thing is pretty crazy, and discouraging. This is the weakest version of the very basics that every non-third world country should have, and if they do pass it, it'll be juuust barely. Maybe not at all.
But ironically, it may be accelerating the inevitable. I think that even if nothing is done, the media's going to pay very close attention to any rate hikes, and in some of the ballsiest maneuvers I've ever seen, the insurance companies seem to be raising premiums even more so than before it became under public scrutiny. I don't think it'll be 4 years before even the tea party is bled so dry that they beg for a public option.
Another issue that I find curious is that in order to help fund coverage for those who need it, coverage is going to be forced on everyone, even those younger to middle aged ones who don't see themselves needing it and certainly don't want it. The cynical would call it a tax because it is imposed and carries no immediate or long term benefit to the payor!
link
On the other hand, opening the borders so that anyone from anywhere can get insurance from any company will definitely incentivize insurance companies to cut their costs. Tort reform, from what I have seen where it HAS been enacted, has no impact on insurance costs. Perhaps regulation capping the administrative costs, with a reasonable ratio of exec:non-exec pay, in essence limiting the compensation of execs but not at the cost of employees, and requiring their staff to all be U.S. based would also help. Eliminate the option of outsourcing lower range jobs to countries where the employees can be paid perhaps 20% of their US counterparts - it should have a reasonable impact on US employment. Customer service jobs don't pay GREAT, but it is sure better than minimum wage flipping burgers.
You didn't understand my prior comment?
THEY DON'T COMPETE!
Here is a question that might help you post more intelligent comments, angels4light.
What other industry in the U.S. besides professional baseball is immune to the Sherman Act?
~
The CBO says that for typical American (people with employer-based health insurance) will pay $100-$300 less in 2019 than they would pay if no health reform passes.
How easy was that!
Media Matters keeps referring to the "non-partisan CBO" as if that's the end of the conversation. Non-partisan doesn't mean they don't make mistakes or are above skepticism. Their own analysis indicates a wide range of variables in play.
And as you say, who knows the state of our economy or what eye-popping who-woulda-thunk-it costs and expenses will rear their ugly heads in 10 years time? It's hardly worth the paper it's printed on.
So republicans can cherry pick the CBO predictions, but when the democrats present the actual CBO predictions to rebut, they are in the wrong because the CBO is inaccurate.
The CBO may not always be accurate (in fact they use the disclaimer to address various substantial variables), however the financial experts are normally more accurate than the politicians pushing their own policy.
The point is they don't serve up G.O.P. lies on a constant basis, as exemplified by Senator Alexander above (not to mention, wingnut parrots such as wrong ON).
Hey, I'm feeling charitable, here's a metaphor. NASA didn't always get things right with the Apollo program. Did that mean we should have had a Glenn Beck do the design work instead?
~
You have no comment on the cost savings through reduced overhead?
How do we come to a place where we're not adding doctors?
Other countries using a more socialistic system don't seem to suffer greatly for wait times. This lessor system isn't even fully defined (Still waiting for republican input that they'll actually vote for), but you'll preemptly worry that it'll cause you to possibly cool your heels?
Goldilocks syndrom. You do not want to be satisfied, you will not be satisfied.
Unfortunately, George Tiller comes to mind. When there are groups who will murder a person for doing perfectly legal things, isn't there a 'chilling effect' on that profession?
A public option will not increase competition. How can private companies compete with the government? They can't.
Anyway, the small increase in the average cost will help insure 31K uninsured Americans, reducing out of pocket and emergency room costs dramatically.
It will also pay for the increased standards on coverage and consumer protection, allowing for high-risk people to obtain coverage, increasing career mobility by maintaining coverage to those switching jobs, and preventing other unfair practices such as denying coverage when people actually decide to use it.
The overall cost of healthcare will drop dramatically as co-pays would drop at a higher rate.
Under the GOP plan the average premium goes down slightly but the coverage would be terrible, ER visits would stay the same and average Co-Pays would go up as a result of less coverage. Overall it would cost more and we wouldn't be adding any new Americans to the system.
1-57% of people will have their premiums go down?
2-31k (31,000?, I'm assuming you meant million) previously uninsured americans will now have coverage.
3- "the small increase in the average cost will help insure 31K uninsured Americans, reducing out of pocket and emergency room costs dramatically." By insuring 31 million more americans that will somehow reduce emergency room and out of pocket costs. ???
4-BY insuring those 31 million people "It will also pay for the increased standards on coverage and consumer protection,", so it will also increase healthcare services, or again i'm assuming you mean the increased premiums for the other 43% percent of people will pay for those benefits.
5-People will be able to take healthcare coverage from one employer to the next, I would like to know who will be responsible for the costs of those transfers?
6-No one will be denied coverage, and higher risk customers won't be denied coverage. So insurance companies or the government will have to pay out higher cost medical treatment, after all that is why they are considered "high risk.".
So after all of that you claim "The overall cost of healthcare will drop dramatically..."???
You are going to have to explain yourself. How can increased coverage, increased services, and increased risk result in a decreased cost? Especially when it is the government, an organization not known for its fiscal responsibility.
The Tyranny of the Corporation is well under way.