AP Health Care Bill Analysis: Bitter pill to come before relief is felt

Americans will feel the pain before the gain from the health care overhaul Democrats are close to pushing through Congress.

Proposed taxes and fees on upper-income earners, insurers, even tanning parlors, take effect quickly. So would Medicare cuts.

Benefits, such as subsidies for lower middle-income households, consumer protections for all and eliminating the prescription coverage gap for seniors, come gradually.

“There’s going to be an expectations gap, no question about that,” said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. “People are going to see their premiums and out-of-pocket costs go up before the tangible benefits kick in.”

Read it all.

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, --The 2009 American Health Care Reform Debate, Budget, Consumer/consumer spending, Corporations/Corporate Life, Economy, Health & Medicine, House of Representatives, Office of the President, Politics in General, President Barack Obama, Senate, The National Deficit, The U.S. Government

10 comments on “AP Health Care Bill Analysis: Bitter pill to come before relief is felt

  1. Chris says:

    “People are going to see their premiums and out-of-pocket costs go up before the tangible benefits kick in.”

    and Democrats are going to see themselves kicked out as well….

  2. Hakkatan says:

    I suspect that (should this package pass) there will be a bitter pill and NO relief. The pain might shift, a little bit, but it will not go away.

  3. Katherine says:

    Who know what the final bill will look like? As proposed by the House, apparently middle and lower-income people who are married will pay much more in premiums than they would if they were cohabitating. There are going to be a lot of angry people.

  4. majorinsight says:

    When Washington D.C. acts, the remainder of the country pays the bill.

  5. Branford says:

    But once it’s in place, it will be very hard to undo – and that’s what the Democrats are counting on. They have said that they don’t mind losing few seats in the next election, because once this bill is passed, they know single-payer (government-run) healthcare is just a matter of time. So it won’t matter – if this bill passes and the GOP wins more seats in 2010, the bill is still law and the GOP can do very little about it.

  6. Branford says:

    From here:

    Here’s the rub: While these four plans vary from low- to high-cost options, the benefits offered under them are pretty much the same. The difference between the cheaper and pricier plans is mostly the amount of cost sharing (e.g., you pay less for insurance if your co-pays are higher).

    In effect, the plan creates a single national health-insurance policy. Consumers’ only real option is to trade higher co-pays for lower premiums. But we’ll all get the same package of benefits established by a series of new agencies and an “insurance czar” seated in Washington.

    Once the exchanges are in place, the individual market–the ability to go directly to an insurer and buy a health-care policy–will disappear. You’ll have only two places to buy insurance, in the exchanges or through your workplace.

    As for health plans offered by employers, “no health-insurance policies could be issued (other than grandfathered plans) that don’t meet the actuarial standards set for these plans” sold in the exchanges. The government will “define the essential health benefits” that all plans must eventually offer, not only those sold in the exchanges but also plans offered by employers. But like other elements of today’s private coverage, the grandfathered plans also disappear in short time. While the bill allows some employer plans to continue as they are today, that’s only so long as the policy doesn’t change–and natural market forces will ensure that most such policies must change within a few years after the bill becomes law.

    All of which brings us to the question of whether you’ll be able to spend extra money to add benefits that exceed the government’s basic package or opt out of that plan entirely. The bill doesn’t address this question directly–yet I can say with great confidence that it will be costly and in some cases impossible.

  7. tired says:

    The AP report is a bit… optimistic about the overall effect.

    [blockquote]”The chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, has estimated that if the Senate health care bill became law, it would make the United States health care system more expensive than if we simply did nothing — undermining the primary rationale for Obama’s health care push.”[/blockquote]

    From [url=http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/11/hhs-actuary-finds-senate-bill]here.[/url]

    🙄

  8. Jim the Puritan says:

    Another good example of “don’t fix what ain’t broke.”

    This is old news however. Our local business newspaper did a story a couple of months ago, where it predicted the cost of an average policy here would immediately go to $15,000 because of the effects of Obamacare. It’s already expensive, I personally pay about $14K a year for family coverage, but this will just make everything worse with less benefits.

  9. Br_er Rabbit says:

    The reason for the early kick-in of the higher taxes and benefit cuts and later kick-in of the actual program is–pure and simple–a sleight-of-hand trick to make the bill appear revenue-neutral, or even (laughingly) to bring the deficit down. No one from the Congressional Budget Office has published the true annual costs of this bill.

  10. Sick & Tired of Nuance says:

    [blockquote]…if this bill passes and the GOP wins more seats in 2010, the bill is still law and the GOP can do very little about it. [/blockquote]

    I can say with great confidence that the GOP [b] [i] will [/b][/i] do very little about it.