The health insurance industry has issued a report warning that under the current Senate version of Obamacare, the cost of private insurance will soar, apparently because the coverage requirement aspect has been weakened significantly. From the story:
The study, done by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the industry group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), says that “by 2019 the cost of single [health care] coverage is expected to increase by $1500 more than it would under the current system and the cost of family coverage is expected to increase by $4000 more than it would under the current system.”
Why? The report cites four areas in the Finance Committee bill that would result in a cost increase:
“- Insurance market reforms coupled with a weak coverage requirement
- A new tax on high-cost health care plans
- Cost-shifting as a result of cuts to Medicare
- New taxes on several health care sectors.”
The weak coverage requirement is a significant factor that analysts across the political spectrum agree on, reports Fox’s Jim Angle.
Pro Obamacare advocates are tut-tutting and pushing back against the greedy industry and calling the study a set up job. Perhaps. But without getting into numbers, which I think are notoriously unreliable regardless of whose there are, I don’t see how they won’t rise significantly. Indeed, the point of much of this is to drive people away from private coverage into the public option, on the way to a single payer. And even if that strategy fails or is not enacted in whatever mess of a law is passed–something will be passed–you can’t prohibit underwriting, do away with the ability of private companies to innovate by providing policies with high deductibles and co-pays, require pre-existing conditions to be insured at no extra charge, increase the number of patients but not doctors–which will cause medical fees to soar–while also refusing to open the market to national competition, and not have higher premiums. Obamacare advocates who say otherwise are trying to fool all of the people all of the time.
October 13th, 2009 | 3:27 pm
Let’s see, a study commissioned by the health insurance industry and trumpeted by Fox. Looks totally objective. No anti-Obama or anti-health care reform bias there. Carry on.
October 13th, 2009 | 3:50 pm
[...] Visit link: Obamacare: Cost of Insurance Policies Will Soar » Secondhand Smoke … [...]
October 13th, 2009 | 4:27 pm
padraig: I know, you believe Obama saying that taxes won’t rise, more people will be covered, there won’t be health care rationing, and everyone can keep their own plan! Talk about naive.
October 13th, 2009 | 8:41 pm
Of course we always believe everything the insurance industry tells us — especially when they’re in danger of having their most egregious abuses curtailed.
October 13th, 2009 | 10:33 pm
Wes, don’t tell me what I believe. I’ve never said any of those things. You have no idea what I believe.
I was talking about the study you cited. I pointed out that it’s obviously crap. For one thing, the Republicans are complaining that they don’t have enough time to read the bill before the vote. Yet these guys had time to put together an in-depth analysis, and you accept it at face value? Actually, its face value is zero, so you’re sort of in infinite inflation mode here.
I won’t accuse you of being naive, Wes. There are other adjectives for your actions in trying to deny health care to millions of Americans, including the children you claim to advocate for.
October 13th, 2009 | 11:12 pm
padraig: It’s no more crap than what Obama has been saying. I have no idea about the ins. study’s numbers. I do know that Obamacare is going to raise prices, raise taxes, lead to rationing, and reduce quality of care for Medicare recipients.
October 14th, 2009 | 10:05 am
Wes, you could have stopped after “I have no idea.”
October 14th, 2009 | 11:45 am
Look, the goal of health care reform is to bring the currently uninsured into a health plan, which will increase the amount that plan pays out. It will also forbid plans from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions, which will increase the amount those plans pay out. It will mandate minimum levels of coverage, which will increase the amount paid out.
Somehow, whether through higher taxes, individual mandates, or the reduction of Medicare/Medicaid benefits, this will have to be paid for. In discussion are cutting Medicare benefits, a value-added tax, and a steep tax on exisiting health care benefits.
Think what you like about the health insurance companies, but these reforms will HAVE to be paid for, and it’s simply dishonest for supporters to pretend otherwise. The Baucus bill in particular hinges on a 25% cut in Medicare funding in 2011, when Medicare spending has been increased almost every year for decades. What are the odds of that happening?
October 14th, 2009 | 12:24 pm
>>For one thing, the Republicans are complaining that they don’t have enough time to read the bill before the vote. Yet these guys had time to put together an in-depth analysis, and you accept it at face value?>>
Ditto for the CBO report that the congress is offering, I suppose?
October 15th, 2009 | 10:02 am
It’s easy to find flaws in the proposed bills — but the status quo is flawed, too. Currently, we DO have rationing — the 40 million who don’t have coverage.
If you’re going to promote human exceptionalism, it seems to me that promoting basic health care as a fundamental human right is a good place to start.
October 15th, 2009 | 11:40 am
>>promoting basic health care>>
Sounds nice.
What do you consider “basic” health care?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact