Premiums are key issue for health care negotiators

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 19 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama began work in earnest Tuesday on difficult issues still standing in the way of their national health care overhaul after months of tortuous debate. Topping the list: How to help Americans pay for insurance premiums.

Republicans weren't invited, and they complained that the Democrats intended to deliberate behind closed doors — though lawmakers often do so in the final stages of such complex legislation. Separately, the head of C-SPAN, the nonpartisan public affairs network, called for letting the sun shine in on the discussions — as Obama once had promised.

House Democrats face the virtual certainty that they will not get the government-run insurance plan liberals had sought, a point Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged.

"There are other ways to do that, and we look forward to having those discussions," she told reporters.

The president wants to sign sweeping legislation to extend insurance coverage by the time of his State of the Union speech, expected in early February. Separate bills passed by the House and Senate would require nearly all Americans to get coverage and would provide subsidies for many who can't afford the cost — but they differ on hundreds of details. Pressure to get a final bill means Democratic congressional leaders are likely to bypass formal negotiations as they reach for a deal.

Pelosi, D-Calif., met Tuesday with senior Democrats to go over the major issues. Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., were to meet with Obama at the White House late in the afternoon, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. ####### Durbin, D-Ill., joining by telephone.

In exchange for losing the federal "government option," House Democrats say they intend to press the Senate to make premiums more affordable for Americans. The outcome of the talks could mean savings of hundreds of dollars for families buying coverage through new insurance supermarkets created by the legislation.

Pelosi said she wants the final product "to ensure affordability for the middle class, accountability for the insurance companies, (and) accessibility by lowering costs at every stage.

The House and Senate "are going for the same goal — hold down costs," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.

White House officials say the bills have 95 percent in common. Maybe so, but the remaining issues could be hard to resolve in the few weeks Obama has in mind. Among them: whom to tax, how many people to cover, how to restrict taxpayer funding for abortion, whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to buy coverage in the new markets with their own money. The list goes on.

Concerns about affordability are paramount. Major subsidies under the bills won't start flowing to consumers until 2013 at the earliest. Even with federal aid many families would still face substantial costs.

The House bill would provide $602 billion in subsidies from 2013-2019, covering an additional 36 million people.

The Senate bill would start the aid a year later, providing $436 billion in subsidies from 2014-2019, and reducing the number of uninsured by 31 million.

The House would provide much greater financial help for households making as much as three times the federal poverty level, $32,490 for an individual, $66,150 for a family of four, according to a side-by-side analysis prepared by House Democratic staffers.

The Senate bill would provide greater assistance for households one rung up the income ladder, making between three and four times the federal poverty level, or up to $43,320 for an individual and $88,200 for a family of four.

The differences can add up.

For example, under the House bill, a family of four making $44,100 would pay no more than $2,425 a year to buy coverage in the new insurance markets. Under the Senate bill, premiums would be higher, $2,778.

The gap between the two bills involves greater out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and copayments. For the same family, the House bill would cap out-of-pocket expenses at $4,000 a year. Under the Senate bill, it could be far more, $6,150.

But sweetening the deal for low- and middle-income households could require more taxes to pay for additional subsidies. And the House and Senate are also at odds over whom to tax. The House wants to raise income taxes on individuals making over $500,000 and couples over $1 million. The Senate would slap a new tax on high-cost insurance plans. Although the Obama administration supports the Senate's insurance tax as a cost saver, labor unions that contribute heavily to Democratic candidates are dead set against it.

There could be common ground in a Senate proposal to raise Medicare payroll taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 and married couples over $250,000. "The Medicare approach taken in the Senate bill may provide the kind of path forward that gets to compromise," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a member of the House leadership.

Democrats reacted defensively to criticism that they are taking the final, most crucial stage of the debate behind closed doors. "We will continue to keep the American people informed, as we have in the earlier stages," Van Hollen said, noting that hundreds of hearings and town hall meetings have been held.

But Obama as a candidate pledged during a presidential debate in January 2008 that he would be "bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are."

That has not occurred, and C-SPAN is taking note. The network released a letter Tuesday from chief executive Brian Lamb to congressional leaders asking for the talks to be opened to cameras.

"Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American," Lamb wrote in the Dec. 30 letter.

___

Associated Press writers Donna Cassata and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100105/ap_on_...h_care_overhaul

[DEDixon 39]

i just read this:

For example, under the House bill, a family of four making $44,100 would pay no more than $2,425 a year to buy coverage in the new insurance markets. Under the Senate bill, premiums would be higher, $2,778.

The gap between the two bills involves greater out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and copayments. For the same family, the House bill would cap out-of-pocket expenses at $4,000 a year. Under the Senate bill, it could be far more, $6,150.

i will be really ticked off if they pass this thing and people are paying 250 a month then every time they go to the doctor, they are nickeled and dimed at every step of the way. or, people pay 250 a month and deductibles are so high, the only thing the insurance ends up covering is heart surgery.

it just stinks to be paying monthly and then also pay at every door step along the way.... every office visit, every lab testing center visit, then pay a the prescription counter.... pay, pay, pay.

i want it to be completely free!!!! smile.gif smile.gif i don't care what it costs. i will retire early, way early, before SS kicks in so just looking out for me, me, me. LOL!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

i just read this:

For example, under the House bill, a family of four making $44,100 would pay no more than $2,425 a year to buy coverage in the new insurance markets. Under the Senate bill, premiums would be higher, $2,778.

The gap between the two bills involves greater out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and copayments. For the same family, the House bill would cap out-of-pocket expenses at $4,000 a year. Under the Senate bill, it could be far more, $6,150.

i will be really ticked off if they pass this thing and people are paying 250 a month then every time they go to the doctor, they are nickeled and dimed at every step of the way. or, people pay 250 a month and deductibles are so high, the only thing the insurance ends up covering is heart surgery.

it just stinks to be paying monthly and then also pay at every door step along the way.... every office visit, every lab testing center visit, then pay a the prescription counter.... pay, pay, pay.

i want it to be completely free!!!! smile.gif smile.gif i don't care what it costs. i will retire early, way early, before SS kicks in so just looking out for me, me, me. LOL!

The problem with this bill is that it is not what anyone wants. It is only a framework for government control, it is not about health care. The public option (which most people believe that this bill is about) is gone. You will be paying higher premiums and getting less service. there is no other way the ogvcernment can do it. There is no need for 2000 plus pages to provide insurance. Scary stuff. The people that support it have no idea what they are supporting and will be sorely disappointed when it is implemented and you will be paying for it for three years before you receive anything (they make the 10 year cost look better that way, pay for 10 years but receive benefits only for 7 years) What insurance policy would you pay for for 3 years before being able to file a cliam? ONLY the government could even think of such nonsense and ONLY because they can FORCE it on you.

Vermont has had this plan for several years and our state subsidized premiums have increased from (maiximum) $400 per month to more than $1000 for family insurance. It is no cheaper than regular health care plans.

Turn your head and cough.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i just read this:

For example, under the House bill, a family of four making $44,100 would pay no more than $2,425 a year to buy coverage in the new insurance markets. Under the Senate bill, premiums would be higher, $2,778.

The gap between the two bills involves greater out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and copayments. For the same family, the House bill would cap out-of-pocket expenses at $4,000 a year. Under the Senate bill, it could be far more, $6,150.

i will be really ticked off if they pass this thing and people are paying 250 a month then every time they go to the doctor, they are nickeled and dimed at every step of the way. or, people pay 250 a month and deductibles are so high, the only thing the insurance ends up covering is heart surgery.

it just stinks to be paying monthly and then also pay at every door step along the way.... every office visit, every lab testing center visit, then pay a the prescription counter.... pay, pay, pay.

i want it to be completely free!!!! smile.gif smile.gif i don't care what it costs. i will retire early, way early, before SS kicks in so just looking out for me, me, me. LOL!

That's basically the current health insurance system we now have. The only difference is that the Democrats want to put caps on premiums to keep them more affordable. A public option would have been the preferred method of keeping premiums low through competition. It's just too bad the Right Wingers were so against it.

[DEDixon 39]

That's basically the current health insurance system we now have. The only difference is that the Democrats want to put caps on premiums to keep them more affordable. A public option would have been the preferred method of keeping premiums low through competition. It's just too bad the Right Wingers were so against it.

"put caps on premiums to keep them more affordable." <-- i'm not sure this will work. caps can keep premiums low, but caps can't keep costs low too (i don't think so). it seems this would just put someone out of business for the premiums won't bring in enough to cover the costs. just sayin' maybe i'm missing something.

"A public option would have been the preferred method of keeping premiums low through competition." <-- although i think we need health care reform, i don't trust anything they tell us so i'm not sure what the public option would really do, and, honestly, i'm not even sure they know.

"It's just too bad the Right Wingers were so against it." <-- be fair my partisan buddy, remember those blue dogs, they are against it too. actually, if the blue dogs were for it, we would have the public option.

[Pooky 3,807]

That's basically the current health insurance system we now have. The only difference is that the Democrats want to put caps on premiums to keep them more affordable. A public option would have been the preferred method of keeping premiums low through competition. It's just too bad the Right Wingers were so against it.

But this is just smoke and mirrors. Someone has to pay the piper, and that someone will be the taxpayer, because heaven forbid the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies lose anything in this game, as they have bought and paid for any number of Democrats in this ongoing charade. These Bills (collectively) are a farce, a hodge-podge of pandering to vested interests, buying off Democrat Senators and Congressmen with special dispensation for their states and political manoeuvring, while nothing much will change in the provision of healthcare.

Oh, and paying for the "improvements" up front, while waiting 4 years for those improvements to be made available in the actual healthcare system is just the icing on the cake. It's like the a furniture sale, buy a sofa and pay nothing until 2014, except in reverse. Pay through the nose for 4 years and sit on the floor, because you can't have your sofa until 2014. The joke is on us.

Has healthcare got anything to do with the process now anyway? Or is it all just politics to get something done, for the simple reason that if nothing gets done, the perceived level of failure of our political representation will be that much greater than it already is?

[DEDixon 39]

The problem with this bill is that it is not what anyone wants. It is only a framework for government control, it is not about health care. The public option (which most people believe that this bill is about) is gone. You will be paying higher premiums and getting less service. there is no other way the ogvcernment can do it. There is no need for 2000 plus pages to provide insurance. Scary stuff. The people that support it have no idea what they are supporting and will be sorely disappointed when it is implemented and you will be paying for it for three years before you receive anything (they make the 10 year cost look better that way, pay for 10 years but receive benefits only for 7 years) What insurance policy would you pay for for 3 years before being able to file a cliam? ONLY the government could even think of such nonsense and ONLY because they can FORCE it on you.

Vermont has had this plan for several years and our state subsidized premiums have increased from (maiximum) $400 per month to more than $1000 for family insurance. It is no cheaper than regular health care plans.

Turn your head and cough.

you care right, nancy p said so herself. she said they'd go another round to get the public option in.... not sure when...what is before us isn't complete in her mind.

but i have my own worries.... realistic worries... i just got out of lower back surgery 2 weeks ago (too much sporting activities) and this recent one is my second surgery. the most recent surgery, because i had no feeling in my right leg after standing for 5 minutes. so gary, question for you, if i were self-employed or not employed (retire early), what are my options?

because of my previous surgery, my spin would not be covered even if i got my own insurance (they would exclude it). do i just deal with a numb leg? i can't pay for it out of pocket and it isn't life threatening so the emergency room won't help. what to do?

i have the means to retire early, but i need insurance too. should i remain working just for the insurance? because our system sucks?

i ask about self employed, because more and more people are self employed these days so they can't get on a group plan. when our employer based health care started, not as many people were self employed. today, a lot of carpenters are self employed, a lot of all the middle class trades have gone to self employment even when they work through a company (they are contractors because companies don't want to take them on). what to do about them?

[AlHayatZween 2]

you care right, nancy p said so herself. she said they'd go another round to get the public option in.... not sure when...what is before us isn't complete in her mind.

but i have my own worries.... realistic worries... i just got out of lower back surgery 2 weeks ago (too much sporting activities) and this recent one is my second surgery. the most recent surgery, because i had no feeling in my right leg after standing for 5 minutes. so gary, question for you, if i were self-employed or not employed (retire early), what are my options?

because of my previous surgery, my spin would not be covered even if i got my own insurance (they would exclude it). do i just deal with a numb leg? i can't pay for it out of pocket and it isn't life threatening so the emergency room won't help. what to do?

i have the means to retire early, but i need insurance too. should i remain working just for the insurance? because our system sucks?

i ask about self employed, because more and more people are self employed these days so they can't get on a group plan. when our employer based health care started, not as many people were self employed. today, a lot of carpenters are self employed, a lot of all the middle class trades have gone to self employment even when they work through a company (they are contractors because companies don't want to take them on). what to do about them?

That sucks, and it is a mess.

Regarding your post #2 above, that is exactly my situation. i have ####### insurance now, a high premium, high deductible, and i'm payin' for everything along the way... The only thing that scares me is how much more expensive everything would be if i didn't have insurance at all... How long before somethin's gotta give ??

It's like the a furniture sale, buy a sofa and pay nothing until 2014, except in reverse.