Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Insurers weigh in
Late yesterday, the insurance industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans released a PricewaterhouseCoopers study that projects how much the Senate healthcare plan will cost families and individuals in increased premiums. The study estimates that the cost of family coverage will go up $1,700 a year in 2013, the year most of the provisions in the bill take effect, and by 2019, premiums could be $4,000 higher. For a single person, the study says premiums would increase by $600 in 2013 and $1,500 in 2019.
“Several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause healthcare costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system,” wrote Karen Ignagni, an insurance industry lobbyist, in a memo to insurance company CEOs.
A spokesman for Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and the author of the Senate Finance Committee plan, called the study a “hatchet job.”
back to top51 Comments to “Insurers weigh in”
When you’ve done made up your mind, the last thing you want is the factual truth.
If anyone really believes you can bring in more participants to a govt program and have the COSTS GO DOWN, there’s ocean front property in Arizona waiting for your down paymt
Report comment to moderator
There are also some useful, cautionary thoughts from Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic. As with most advocacy pieces, the report makes some assumptions that do not especially hold up, and others that seem valid. As Cohn points out, this will be a case of further analysis in the days ahead.
Report comment to moderator
Regulated insurers won’t be able to compete with the regulators and a phony public “option.”
Report comment to moderator
Surely, Sawgunner, you’re not saying the government has LIED to us?!
Report comment to moderator
Why don’t we just throw in the towel and all becomes slaves? Isn’t that, ultimately, where all this–and not just health insurance but the rest of the bailouts and bogus money–is headed?
Report comment to moderator
Obama promised that the $829 billion health care bill won’t cost a dime. The White House is furious that the truth leaked out prior to the vote. The left wing media is calling the truth a partisan attack and that the health care bill will bring down costs.
The fact that costs will go up should be obvious. The Senate Bill will be paid for in part by taxing insurance companies. They will pass the costs on to the consumer. How will raising taxes a business bring costs down?
Obama’s solution for everything is to tax it. His solution for health care is to tax health insurance companies. His solution for energy is to tax energy companies. His solution to the economic downturn is to increase debt and raise taxes. Let’s tax and spend our way to prosperity!
Report comment to moderator
I’m surprised that you are so credulous. Why would you uncritically accept the Insurance Industry’s report as “the factual truth”? Don’t they clearly have a financial interest to protect? Don’t you remember Tobacco Industry reports demonstrating that smoking actually wasn’t that harmful or that addictive?
Whether a given plan will raise or lower costs is a critical question, so we should be careful and critical with our sources. As far as I’m aware, the Congressional Budget Office is a solid source. Their credibility is increased by a history of releasing numbers that the administration isn’t happy with.
Report comment to moderator
And of course without the reforms, the insurance companies assure us that these increases will not occur??
Sure.
The Republican right and the insurance companies have been notoriously silent on issue of insurance reform
The $4000 increase by 2019 for familes is I suggest quite similar to the premium increase we are going to see without reform, so this is hardly a decisive argument against reform!
Did the insurance industry examine the number of individual bankruuptcies do to medical costs which will be forestalled? givenn the approxmiamte wash in costs, this would seem a useful additional metric.
How about uninsured who will now be covered?
Even if I accept the insurance companies arguments at face value, I suggest they are at worst the forward looking premium increases we now face and do not consider the improved insurance client which health reofrm has the potential for offerring.
P.S. and if we have a public option to comete???
Report comment to moderator
JJF post 7
The CBO numbers only estimate the impact on the federal budget. They don’t estimate the cost to other sectors of the economy.
It would be good to take the insurance industry report with a grain of salt, but it would also be good to remember that you can’t get something for nothing. I we insure an extra 7% of the population, someone, somewhere is going to have to pay for it.
Report comment to moderator
didymus post 9,
you are correct, the CBO numbers address, as the Rpublican’s have been requesting, the impact onthe Federal budget.
As I posted in post 8, I suggest that whole raison d’etre for health reform, as Obama has aoften said, is to address the long term costs on the rest of the ecnomy.
A cursory read of the insurance companies input suggest that in their opinion, whether we have health care reform or not, the impact on premiums would seem to be similar.
I hardly consider them an objective source AND further it appears they are looking at only insurance costs, not other costs incurred by the economy.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 6,
when yo say:
“Obama promised that the $829 billion health care bill won’t cost a dime. ”
I have repeatedly informed you that you are misquoting him. I suggest your continued use of this canard indicates that you aren ow promulgating this falsehood knowingly.
Obama has siad it will not add to the deficit.
The Baucus proposal reduces the deficit.
All other proposals which have achieved any degree of substance are deficit neutral.
if you argue otherwise, please produce data to support your allegation.
Based on your continued and now arguably wilful repeating of this canard, I suggest it is increasingly clear that you have none.
Report comment to moderator
Seriously people is the best you can do to argue that after reform from the insurance companies financial perspective the effect will effectively be nuetral?
And that is an argument against health reform???
Report comment to moderator
Oh, I’m sure their 380 million dollars and 3000 lobbyists have been quite loquacious (and very persuasive) over the past few months.
Report comment to moderator
The fact that costs will go up should be obvious.
How much will the average cost of a regular, non-extended office visit increase, XION?
What would you say if it went down?
Report comment to moderator
So for clairty,
as far as I can tell, all efforts to quantify the impact of health care reform financialy show either a wash or a possible positive economic impact. In short, the economic arguments stem from an assessment over whether health reform provides a foudnation to change the trajectory of health care costs in the US or not.
The real issues is not financial, but rather the questino over whether we trust government intervention in this arena or not, or more correctly if we are willing to countenance a perhaps 7% increase in government involvement in this arena over what we already have.
Since at root this is arguably a philosiophical issue, there is no clear cut answer here. One can say, however, that there is a clear and present crisis (ironically the insurance companies just told us so) and for those coming at this from a pragmatic perspective, since the free market has failed, government seems the next logical option to try (labor, being the third player in the economy, is generally not looked on with favor on this point by pretty much everybody including labor).
And since the Republicans and conservatives did nothing on this issuue for eight years …
And now there appears to be a reasonable consensus in the country to move forward with health reform, so my snese is that this is what will occur.
Report comment to moderator
scroop moth post 14,
as I noted the costs will go up without health reform, and if we accept the insurance companies numbers at face value (a tenditious discussion in itself) apparently by an amount surprisingly close to these apparent insuarance estimates even if we do not get health reform.
Hardly the damning study which the headline would seem to suggest.
Report comment to moderator
Now the White House is going apoplectic about Fox News.
I guess that is easier than having a debate about the actual costs.
Why can’t the White House simply address the facts? Has any other president in history waged an all out war on any disagreement like this president has? There is no bottom to the nastiness.
Report comment to moderator
#11 I realize that Musing. You are mincing words. If I say I am going to buy a new car for the same cost as selling my old one, how much did it cost me? Care to address my actual point?
Report comment to moderator
xion post 17,
Nixon???
I suggest he raised this to an art form.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 18,
sure.
If you sell your car and buy a new one for the same amount, your net cash flow (assuming a cash transaction) is zero.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 18,
now you could pay for your new car on time, in which case, at least intially, your cash flow is positive.
If the time value of money is equal to you interest rate, then the NPV for both transactions should then also be zero.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 18,
and if you look very carefully the same math applies to the health reform bill, despite the protestations of the insurance companies.
Report comment to moderator
The government has NEVER done anything without more taxation and higher costs. Ever. Stop lying.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 23,
of course medicare uses 5% of its revenue to support adminsitrative costs, private insurance uses 15% – 25%.
Likewise our military is a fraction of the cost of our hired mercenaries.
I believe these two examples disprove your categorical:
“The government has NEVER done anything without more taxation and higher costs”
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
I am detecting a sense that perhaps you are saying things recently without actually checking on the facts. This probably does not help your arguments nor improve your crediblity.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 23,
now I believe Ihave understood you are a lawyer.
As such, I find the use by you of categorical statements a bit puzzling. It is well understood that categoricals can be completely disproved by a single exception, so these are difficult to sustain except under very special conditions.
Is there a reason for using such categoricals where it appears there are simple exceptions which would appear to fully refute these categoricals?
Report comment to moderator
The military is not a program, Musing. But it, too, succeeds or fails based on taxation. Medicare is funded through tax dollars and when they want more, they print more money or they tax more. They DO NOT balance the books. If they did, we would not be in the current economic situation.
Report comment to moderator
I like “categoricals.” Is there a reason you constantly annoy with your manipulated statistics?
Report comment to moderator
#19 Nixon expressed his dislike of the press privately because they came after him non-stop – as they should have. Some of those private conversations were made public.
In that case, the press was doing its job. The press should be a watchdog over corruption in government and industry. Nixon and every Republican president since has taken it on the chin. Obama’s handlers whine like babies whenever someone disagrees.
What we have now is a full court press by the White House to publicly trash anyone who disagrees with them. They even name-call the voting public who happens to disagree. The White House and Congress call American citizens “unAmerican angry mob Nazi placard waving domestic terrorists”. They tried to even set up a snitch line to turn in anyone who disagreed.
To me it looks so childish, like whiny kids on the playground who having no legitimate point simply call other people names.
Report comment to moderator
Musing #20, #21. Even though you agree with me that my statement was correct, I don’t see where you admit that you were wrong.
#22 “and if you look very carefully the same math applies to the health reform bill, despite the protestations of the insurance companies”
So says Obama. He plans to rob $500 billion from Medicare. Ask the elderly who will be standing in line whether it cost them anything.
Would you bet your next paycheck that Obama’s plan will not cost one dime? Don’t worry, Obama already has his eye on your paycheck and more.
In the end, Obama will have lied. Liberals will deny this as long as they can, and then they will praise him for it. C’est la vie.
Report comment to moderator
My blood pressure is in pretty good shape at the moment. How is yours doing?
Based on what I read every time “health care” blog topic comments at wmb, I would love to be able to pop a cuff around your arm. Either one, left or right.
Report comment to moderator
It’s WEIRD about INSURANCE companies these days.
Within 1 week two different insurance companies said something about not being able to make money that way. They were referring to the cost of the policy and payout to the holder. One was regarding flood insurance and the other was health insurance.
It’s like they are trying to get as much money as they can before they are shut down by gov’t insurance. I’ve never heard them say that before. I thought it was a gamble either way. We pay them with no claims–they win. Or they pay us when something happens.
In recent years they have cancelled homeowner policies for just inquiring about a possible claim. So you pay them for years and then you call them one day asking if something is covered and you get a black mark on your record. Too many black marks and they cancel you.
In recent years the policies have become more expensive and the payout has gotten smaller. Has anyone seen an insurance company go bankrupt? (except for AIG)
Report comment to moderator
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.
Report comment to moderator
Why isnt’ anybody talking about a “Direct Payer” System, or a Internet competitively incentivized Market.
A “Direct Payer” system would be a fully competitive system whereby nearly everybody got their insurance directly over the web, rather then through company or government plans.
Obviously this cuts out a ton of cost.
Go to vimo.com and notice that there are people in their twenties getting healthcare for $75/month. The insurance companies
are refining by developing more specific plans and improving prices as we speak.
The major problem is competition. The insurance companies won’t give you a firm price without enrolling you. Here are two
pieces to legislation that would fix this:
1. Companies should be forced to give a firm price without enrollment within a specificed time period.
2. Companies should be required to state in their price quote what pre-existing conditions are covered.
3. Pre-existing Condition policies should be provided as public information on insurance websites.
This could happen through government reform legislation. A conservative
candidate should propose it.
Once these were passed, third party websites could provide real price comparisons. Also, insurance
companies would get to cut out the middleman if they wanted.
Companies would be forced to innovate with new service distinguishers and plans. They would add pre-existing conditions in order to gain customers.
Of course, prices would drop.
Whats in it for the insurance companies?
* Millions of more customers
* Insurance companies don’t lose their industry.
* Insurance companies get to cut out the middleman costs on lots of customers, depending on how the industry
shapes itself due to market conditions.
Report comment to moderator
#34 <i(Why isnt’ anybody talking about…
YOU are. That’s fine.
Why aren’t you talking to anybody who can actually cause it to happen instead of just posting comments on a web site where people [yes, including me] just post comments for the sake of hearing themselves talk and striking poses and postures?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 27,
you seem to be confounding staying within ones budget and being efficient.
Actually medicare has been running a surplus for some time.
And the efficiency argument for both medicare and the military is not challengable based on the data.
In short, I suggest that these two disporve your earlier assertion (and II only need one.
).
Report comment to moderator
Renewalpatriot post 34,
now while I probably disagree with a number of your policy proposals, I do agree that for a change this is a conservatvie policy proposal.
Too bad:
1) it was not reviewed when the consrvatives controlled congress
2) posed as a serious alternative in congress while the Republicans were so busy saying “no”
I think the train has already left, and it is too late to make this class of change now.
Report comment to moderator
The problem with insurance companies is they get together at conventions and agree on price ranges. They seem to keep the prices real close. And who are we to tell them that they can’t make 400 percent profit like many other businesses.
Report comment to moderator
When the health insurance company tells you that you can NOW only have 4 pills per month for your MIGRAINES because they can’t make money otherwise, you begin to wonder if they know that national healthcare is threatening to take over. (then you get a migraine) Maybe if they raise the prices now then the gov’t healthcare price will be their normal price. So when they lower their price to the gov’t healthcare price they won’t lose much money. Clear as mud?
Didn’t the insurance companies support O in the election? He needs their money for the next election so they will be around for a while, yes?
Report comment to moderator
xion post 30,
hmm, I am not sure where you argue I was wonrg, but whatever.
Obama is not robbing $500B form medicare, nor is he chanigng any of the benefits.
He is eliminating the medicare advantage and replacing it with fee for services becauae, as has been noted several times, there is a 16% or so premium being paid on medicare advantage.
This is worth aobut $170B over 10 years, not $500B.
I keep looing for the $500B and h aven ot found it yet.
Where in the CBO numbers does this come from?
Report comment to moderator
xion post 30,
when you say:
“Would you bet your next paycheck that Obama’s plan will not cost one dime?”
of ocurse not. It will, as has been disucssed many times, cost about $890B or so over 10 years, a cost which will be matched by savings in the medical industry and additional taxation.
The gap requiring taxation appears to be about $239B over 10 years or less depending on the plan. and there are several models for the taxation.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 30,
now when you say:
“In the end, Obama will have lied. ”
this is a hypothetical.
What is not hypothetical is that those opposing health care reform have lied repeatedly and often. They have misstated in WMB and had WMB correct them the next day (money from medicare and AARP for example).
So for those opposing health care reform to now be concerned with lying is indeed a very amusing hypocricy!
Report comment to moderator
xion post 29,
nioxon had an enemies list (since made public) and used the resources of the federal government to opursue thoseon his enemies list.
Obama is raising in public his concern wit the quality of news from Fox and is not using the Federal government to pursue this and you are comparing Nixon with Obama on this issue?
You can not be serious. It owuld appear that you were not alive when Nixon was president then.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 28,
and can you show me where I have manipulated the statistics?
And of course, as discussed, categoricals are frequently trivial to disprove, so I guess you enjoying being refuted by the data then.
Report comment to moderator
God, give me strength.
It would be better if Obama could actually prove something against Fox News, but it can’t. A bunch of whinies, that’s all they are. The press is the Fourth Estate. It is supposed to point out the problems. Obama just wants everybody to agree with him, he wants no opposition, and quite frankly, everyone should be appalled by this. But when you worship at the feet of the Obama, you don’t demand that he make his case, you support him in his whining. You deserve an award!
Report comment to moderator
When asked about all the mainstream media bowing at the Obama altar, Obama always points to FOX and whines that they don’t like him.
He has shown that he knows how to use the community to get his way so no one can suspect him of what goes on behind the scenes. He trained community organizers–doesn’t that make him an expert in how to use the rules to get what you want. Obama is very clever at manipulating the community to think that what it is doing will be better for the community. If Obama is happy, isn’t everybody happy. It just makes the chill go right up my leg. No, no wait…I think I’m getting sick. Ralph
Report comment to moderator
#5 – Michelle – “Why don’t we just throw in the towel and all becomes slaves? Isn’t that, ultimately, where all this–and not just health insurance but the rest of the bailouts and bogus money–is headed?”
That’s is where congress and President Obama and all the rest of the Progressives in and around government want this to go, but I for one don’t intend to become a slave without a big fight. I think we need some voter imposed term limits, as in vote the bums out of office and get some new non-career politicians in there who have not spent more than 8 years in Washington. I’d rather have inexperienced congressmen and senators (as it is, we have an inexperienced president) than the malefactors we have now. At the very least, it will be a breath of fresh air, and they won’t be entrenched in their offices and out of touch with us unwashed masses.
Report comment to moderator
God, give me strength.
He hasn’t yet?
A bunch of whinies, that’s all they are.
Although they whinge incessantly, I have a soft spot for conservative Christians. They figure they don’t need health care because they will go to an imaginary place called Heaven.
Imaginary mileage is infinite; you don’t have to measure it.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
I do note that you have not provided evidence to support your argument that I manipulate statistics.
I must assume then that you haveno supporting evidence.
Report comment to moderator
#36 and many other places where you are manipulating a statistic Musing.
Under trust-fund accounting (which was abolished in 2001) Medicare was running a surplus. Under cash accounting Medicare is running a deep deficit. Trust-fund accounting obscures the fiscal bottom line by counting prior-year surpluses, together with the interest-earned thereon, as genuine savings. In reality, these “assets” are simply claims on future taxpayers. These figures, moreover, only refer to Hospital Insurance (HI) or Medicare Part A, which brings us to a second problem. Trust-fund accounting lets leaders ignore Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI), Medicare’s other half. The SMI or Part B trust fund is always “solvent” since general revenues plug any gap between beneficiary premiums and outlays. Solvency, however, is not the same as sustainability.
By using the cash accounting framework, Medicare is now on the same accounting system as every other government run program.
The Defense Budget is not a “program” and no it does not run “on” budget or have a “surplus”. The Defense Budget is a spend it all or lose it next year system and often the budget is run dry by the beginning of month 9. They then get an appropriations budget to take them through the rest of the fiscal year. This was severely abused during the Bush years and the wars and the last time there was a “surplus” in the Defense Budget was in 1974.
Report comment to moderator
Can’t refute the facts Musing?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!