Ezra Klein: The Baucus Bill: Affordability

it allows a ration of 5:1 for age. Middle class people of 50 + will not be able to afford their insurance, when they probably need the most.

Not sure why Ezra Klein insists trying to find positive in this bill. Yes, it closes a few loopholes, but leaves so many open that the insurance companies must be more than happy.

This makes the cost for a family of four right at 400% of the FPL $11,466 for their premium alone--plus their co-pays and deductibles.

How on earth is that affordable? It does seem that former Cigna executive Wendell Potter was right when he called the Baucus plan a 'giveawway to the insurance companies.'

But I do not get Klein at all. He has another post where he says that the bill is good because it allows everybody to enter the exchange in .... 2022.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/the_baucus_plan_and_the_exchan.html

2012.... Really, and he is impressed by this (or did working for WaPo include some brainwashing of some sort?)

set it 400 percent, which is a little more than $88,000.

EXCLUSIVE: Finance Bill Won't Increase the Cap on Subsidies

and all the other lousy proposals is that they make single-payer look better and better.

We need to provide healthcare to the uninsured. Where did we get lost?

Oh yeah, so now we're going to mandate insurance, instead of mandating healthcare.

Weird. Oh and, we haven't discussed a single limit or cap on what a premium can be based on pre-existing or chronic. And finally, we make no requirement that policy holders of this insurance get annual primary / preventative healthcare physicals. We don't require that hospitals take care of you regardless of your insurance status, even though we're going to fine you for not having insurance at a time when the hospital refused you healthcare.

Hmmmmm. It stinks.

The bill does not allow premiums to be raised based upon pre-existing conditions or health history. It allows some (capped) variation based upon age/family size/tabacco use/etc, but not health history.

While the bill doesn't require people get physicals, it does require that plans cover preventive care.

Healthcare is provided through health insurance in this country. While you may have a vision where healthcare is somehow provided without health insurance, rest assured that none of the bills that have passed any committee in either house adhere to this vision. Even the strongest public option requires premiums that the public option can sustain itself off of.

You're saying accept the status quo, this is the only way it can be done. That's not healthy thinking on this topic.

And here's where it goes astray: Insurance companies ONLY profit when they reduce what they pay on claims. That means private insurers (by definition, for profit) have a vested interest in collecting premiums. Now they have a legal mandate that we pay premiums. We have a nuance of the law that says charging people for a service you don't provide is considered racketeering. Charging people for insurance on a mandate and administering those programs to accommodate shareholder profit without guaranteeing actual health CARE is just plain wrong. Baucus deserves the public crucifixion he's about to face.

This plan is not America. It's absolutely not socialism - this is capitalism ad absurdia.

What is the difference between premiums and tax? A monthly payroll tax vs. a monthly premium? I can answer that - when it's a tax you have protections that require congressional intervention to change. You have a representative voice. When it's a premium, you have no representative voice in what those private companies do to avoid paying for your healthcare.

I just had a friend in the states lose their home. They moved into a tent. This is hitting so many people so hard. Its needs to be done with.

I proposed a few times, a good compromise would be a catastrophic single-payer mechanism. A high deductible (based on a reasonably affordable amount of out of pocket costs) free plan everyone is automatically enrolled in. Once you go over the thresholds, the government pays the rest. Why? Because the system failed you, and thats the fault of the government for inadequate reform. If the reforms work, its wouldn't cost a penny.

There is something in BC called Fair Pharmacare (http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/pharmacare/plani/planiindex.html#7). After 2-4% of your income, you get 100% coverage.

Doing this would INSTANTLY lower premiums because it sets a max payout cap on each person in the risk pool. It would be a real solution. Incrementally lowering the deductible would be a straight path to single-payer. Its sad no one care about ideas like this.

Also it seems like something insurance companies would want to get behind because the government essentially mitigates their risk.

of the country (under 65) does not have access to the best health care. Yet all of the country contributes to taxes that fund new research, drugs, and techniques. Aside from the moral issue of medical bankruptcies and choosing between food and health care, there is something also fundamentally wrong with all of us helping fund the best medical care that is available to only the wealthiest of our citizenry.

If the huge engine of government, taxation, public university hospitals, medical schools, research funding (not a small amount), etc only exists because of the work and taxes of ALL of us, why do only a portion of us get to benefit from it?

And why does the Baucus bill cost so much? Can't we just pass laws that limit immoral corporate activity (like cherrypicking and denying coverage and buying legislators)? Why does stopping the pillaging of citizenry wealth by insurance companies have to cost the taxpayers? Are we somehow paying the insurance companies NOT to rip us off so badly? Are we doing something about compensation, like the CEO of UHC who got 1 billion dollars for less than a decade of work?

I DON'T GET IT!!

Advantage plans. Public support would be there.

Will President Obama veto it. How could he agree to force people to buy health care insurance that is going to bankrupt them and not provide adequate protection?