Senate Dems Consider Health Care Fix That Could Hit Poor Consumers Hardest

Source: Sam Stein/Huffington Post

Sam Stein
HUFFPOST REPORTING

Senate Dems Consider Health Care Fix That Could Hit Poor Consumers The Hardest

First Posted: 03/ 7/11 04:06 PM Updated: 03/ 7/11 04:06 PM

WASHINGTON -- Democrats on the Hill are growing increasingly convinced and, in some cases, concerned that in an effort to offset the cost of repealing a tax requirement in the president’s health care bill, the party will settle on a policy that jacks up insurance prices for low-income Americans.

The policy prescription, known as a “true-up,” and well-outlined by Talking Points Memo’s Brian Beutler, is the favored approach of House Republicans. Under the true-up, individuals who receive subsidies to help purchase insurance would be subject to heightened penalty from (or payback to) the IRS, starting in 2014, should they move up income brackets.

Up until last weekend, it seemed likely that Senate Democrats would balk at such an approach, wary that it would come off as penalizing the poor and discouraging those in need from taking subsidies to purchase insurance. But now, sources with knowledge of the conversations say, the party is leaning toward adopting the House GOP language in an effort to pay for the repeal of the law’s 1099 provision -- an unpopular requirement that requires small business owners to make excessive tax-reporting requirements.

“This is very real,” said one knowledgeable Senate source who was adamantly opposed to the proposal. “There are people talking to (leadership), letters from members, who are trying to make this not happen. But it is very, very real.” A Senate Democratic aide confirmed that assessment.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/health-care-fix-poor-consumers_n_832488.html

:sarcasm:

Blaming Obama is ridiculous.

Shifting blame away from Obama is ridiculous.

You know.

:crazy:

and many Democratic members of Congress expressed their disappointment that they were shut out of the process.

Once the deal was done they were told they had to accept it or "bad things would happen".

Perhaps you remember things differently.

Dem POTUS has nothing to do with how Dems in Congress vote.

with something even worse.

Does this count as part of the "we'll fix it later" crap we heard?

"Everyone chill the fuck out. He's got this"



Oops Sorry, wrong graphic...

I may steal it.

it's alright...
it's alright...

So now we're supposed to blame the Dems for considering it and let the Pubs off the hook for creating it?

This shit never ends!

at a world of sanity while the country continues to sink deeper into right-wing nonsense aided by the administration and DINOs in congress.

And, sadly, even they end up going along with the agenda after initial attempts to make it better go over like a lead balloon.

That's a shitty way to shift the payment of this.

All americans need to share the cost of this based on their ability to pay. If only there were some system in place to collect these payments...

so tax cuts can remain in place for the wealthy. That's the bottom line.

And let's not forget the Cat Food Commission.

Wonder if named sources are boycotting Arianna, too.

It's how journalism works.

It's the same as an "anonymous source" talking to a tabloid.

Sorry, tabloids have one kind of audience from which they make their money ; Huffpo a very different kind. We'll talk again when Huffpo fills its pages with tales of aliens and four headed babies and still holds its readership.

Not saying this story is true, just saying I've seen too many snarks about anonymously-sourced stories that turned out to be true to give those snarks much credence. And, often the "anonymous source" is che person himself or someone who speaks for him or someone else in a position to know ("Deep Throat" was an anonymous source.).

Some anonymously-sourced political stories are trial balloons; some are vaccinations--getting the public used to something potentiially unpleasant before confirming.

As I said, it's how journalism works. Always has been.

On this story, we'll know soon enough.

...and 40 Million (70 Million?) Americans are forced to BUY junk Health Insurance.
Even with a subsidy, most will have to come out of their empty pockets and send their dwindling dollars directly to a RICH CORPORATION for a "product" they can't afford to use (High Co-Pay/High Deductible).

They will be PISSED,
and they will blame the Democrats,
and rightly so.
The "Democrats" passed a Republican Health Insurance Scam without forcing the Republicans to take ANY responsibility.
All the Republicans have to do is sit back and say, "Yep. We opposed it."

Bad NOW?
Wait until 2014.
A Perfect Storm Approaches.
Democrats will be unelectable for a generation.

I DO have to commend the Democratic Party Leadership for their wisdom in delaying the MANDATE until after the next election.

"Thank GAWD it passed!!!"



Who represents THIS overwhelming American Majority?

"By their works you will know them."

This garbage scow of a HCR bill will be our undoing for YEARS.

government medical programs. That would mean the it is the taxpayer who is going to pay more for MNCare, medicaid and medicare which all use insurance programs to cover their clients.

Right now, children can get Medicaid or some other low income alternative relatively easy. Women with children come next, then men with children, then single women and last on the list is the single man, in the low income totem pole. So, single women and men will probably fall through the cracks. What a country!

zalinda

barely squeaking by. the mandate would drive people like me out of our homes and deep into poverty.

"Households that move into an income bracket of 300 to 400 percent above the federal poverty line would have to pay up to $2,500 back to the IRS. For those that move into the range of 200 to 300 percent above poverty, that cap is $1,500. For those who move into the 100 to 200 percent range, it is $600. Those who move above the 400 percent range, which is the limit for qualifying for a subsidy in the first place, coule face a payback even higher than $2,500."

A chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Recent_poverty_rate_and_guidelines

I'll use a single person in the 48 for the simplest explanations.

If you were a single person making $10,890 a year, got subsidies, and the next year, you made $43,560, you would have to pay up to $2,500 for the prior year's subsidies.

If you were making $10,890 a year, got subsidies, and made $21,690 the next year, you would have to pay $600.

If you make over $43,560, you can't get the subsidies, or the penalties.

your income then you pay abour $600 back... treble your poverty level income and you have to pay $2,500 - which is not easy but still not heinous.

so this aspect doesn't bother me, what bothers me is the "junk insurance with high co-pay, and low benefits". I have never seen any examples of what the insurance packages will be, but I do not believe there are any constraints on the insurance companies as regards what minimum of service they are required to offer..? Is that right?

and they are well laid out as to what must be covered.
There are also a number of things that they can't even charge a copay for, mostly preventative tests/care, including well baby care
Mental health coverage is included in all policies.

As far as high copay part there is an annual cap on how much a patient can be made to pay out of pocket even if they are in the hospital for a long time. It tops out at just under 5,000 (10K for a family) for those above subsidy level but it is lower as income goes down so the top lower income people could be made to pay in a year is $2,000

The other things that keeps this out of junk status are the other protections involved like no annual or lifetime cap on coverage. And remember they have to spend at least 80/85% of premiums collected on patient care. (It is under 50% in some areas now)

Policies on exchange will be competing for customers so the odds are they'll set their copay/deductible in a pretty sane fashion

However I think repay is punishing. If your income goes up you will now be paying higher premiums and I bet you have a lot of repair and replacement in your home and life.

With all the job lay offs it made me wonder what safety nets there are for someone who suddenly has huge drop in income. They can't wait a year for help with premiums

Shoot poor people in the face? I mean.. bullets must be less expensive than going through all this legal hoopla.

The individual mandate is NOT a tax.

A tax is paid equitably by all (less offsetting credits for the poor).

It should have been paid for by a slight increase of the income tax from the start (which wouldnt have been possible to challenge in court).

Mandates arent taxes, they are compelled purchases of private products, and the amount it costs per tax payer is variable.

Meanwhile back at the Health Insurance companies headquarters all over, money is to be made in the utter confusion.

Every goddamn day. I don't know how much more hope and change we can survive.

Fuckers.

I will do so tomorrow. If everyone who rec'd and read this OP did the same, we could make a difference.

comparing how we treat the poorer strata of society in general with how we treat the richest is sickening.

And by "we," I mean elected officials of both dominant parties.

Also, won't enforcing this cost more than it will bring in? No matter. We'll show those who manage to claw their way up a bit who's boss.