Here’s a good overview of the immediate impact of Health Care Reform, if it passes…

Seniors: Even though they are being told otherwise, seniors will pay the biggest price for reform. Half of the reason that Sen. Reid got a favorable cost estimate from CBO is because his bill cuts Medicare by $471 billion over the coming decade. An earlier report from the program’s chief actuary says cuts this deep would cause many providers to stop seeing Medicare patients or even to close their doors.

Everyone: The federal government would, for the first time, require every American to have health insurance. The government would stipulate what that mandatory insurance must cover and how much of their incomes people can afford to pay for it, and penalize them if they don’t comply. While some would be eligible for subsidies or waivers, most Americans would face tax penalties of $750 a year or 2 percent of their incomes, whichever is higher, to force compliance.

People buying their own insurance: The CBO says that families purchasing insurance in the individual market would not see a reduction, but rather an increase, in their premiums by $2,100 in the year 2016. That’s over and above the increases they already will be facing as health-insurance premiums continue to rise at about twice the rate of general inflation. A family would pay $15,200 for health insurance by 2016 if Sen. Reid’s bill passes, and $13,100 if it doesn’t. The CBO concluded that premiums in the individual market will be 10 to 13 percent higher in this market than if Congress did nothing.

People who work for small businesses: Those receiving health insurance through their employers will continue to see higher costs, with premiums for a family getting coverage though a small business increasing to $19,200 by 2016 — about the same pace as they would without reform.

People who work for large companies: The White House boasted that under the Senate bill, premiums for employees of large firms would remain mostly unchanged. But that means they would continue to go up almost as fast as they have been, reaching $20,100 for a family and $7,300 for an individual by 2016.

All employers: Companies also face an avalanche of new reporting requirements, penalties, and potential fines. Firms face fines whether or not they provide health insurance if any of their workers get taxpayer-subsidized coverage. And with subsidies available for families earning up to $80,000 a year, the exposure is significant.

Young people: Most haven’t a clue that the federal government is about to slap them with a new mandate requiring them to purchase expensive health insurance. Studies show that they would likely pay premiums two or three times the amount they would normally be charged based upon their age and expected use of health services.

Patients: A new independent board will have the power to cut Medicare benefits, and its decisions can only be overruled by another act of Congress. Private plans are likely to follow its recommendations. Congress doesn’t want to be held directly responsible for the rationing decisions the board inevitably will make, but the voters will quickly figure it out.

Doctors: Starting in March, doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and others who treat Medicare patients will face a 21 percent cut in their Medicare payments. This means doctors face a permanent lobbying campaign just to keep payments from being slashed.

Health-sector companies: While few people have sympathy for health-insurance companies and drug plans, they, too, will also face onerous new federal regulations and higher taxes — costs that can only be passed on to consumers in the form of reduced benefits or higher premium costs.

States: While about 10 states receive special favors (as in, pay-offs) in the Reid bill, the others will wind up with higher costs for their already budget-busting Medicaid programs. Another 15 million people will be added to the rolls of this program, which was originally intended for low-income people.

Budget watchers: The Reid bill would increase federal spending by $2.5 trillion in the first decade it goes into effect, but it is paid for by a combination of job-killing taxes and unrealistic cuts to Medicare. No one — including the CBO — believes these “pay-fors” are sustainable. As a result, the health overhaul bill inevitably will swell the federal budget deficit.

Health-insurance costs are likely to begin soaring right away, most of the new subsidies for insurance don’t kick in until 2014, higher taxes go into effect almost immediately, and seniors will find it harder and harder to find a doctor to see them and to get the care they need.

NRO

photo credit: vgm8383

Breaking the Bank: Beijing and Health Care

By Chuck Colson

Who cares the most about health care reform? The President? Congress? Seniors? The health insurance industry? Well, the answer will surprise you.

The biggest single vote to be cast on health care reform is taking place in, of all places, Beijing. Chinese officials are questioning American officials about health care reform in the U.S.

The Times wrote, “The Chinese were not particularly interested in the public option or universal health care….They wanted to know, in painstaking detail, how the health care plan would affect the [U.S.] deficit.”

Why would the Chinese be so interested in our deficit? Well, for all intents and purposes, China is the official banker of the United States government. China is the number one foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities.

The Chinese are nothing if not clever. One investment banker told me that they had converted all of their debt from 30-year maturity to one year. The hard questions they are asking right now are about how much the health care bill will raise the deficit. And make no mistake, if the Chinese decide not to continue financing our debt, the dollar could drop through the floor.

America could have a huge financial crisis. If that isn’t a wake-up call to the politicians, the media, and to the American public, I don’t know what it’s going to take. Sadly, the government doesn’t think that way. The politicians want their pet projects—health care reform or earmarks—and they want them now. No matter that the U.S. budget deficit is at an all-time high. If you or I behaved this way with our personal finances, we’d be broke.

Well, the Chinese are having none of it. And what they are proving is that you don’t need huge armies or navies to conquer America. All you need to do is loan the U.S. government all the money it wants for social reengineering, and then call in the debt. It’s time we all asked the government to be responsible with our money. Deferred gratification and prudence are virtues worthy of Christian individuals and of governments as well. I and other Christians have voiced numerous concerns over the health care reform bill being debated on Capitol Hill—freedom of conscience, the government being involved in end-of life decisions, publicly funded abortion to name a few.

But in the end, it may be that the health care bill being debated on Capitol Hill will turn out to be just too expensive. We cannot afford it. Just ask the Chinese.

On Tuesday, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf told Sen. Baucus’ committee that its plan to cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage would cost some 2.7 million people to lose this coverage altogether and result in lower benefits for the rest. The program will become so unattractive that people will quit buying the policies in the future.

The fact is that if you like your current coverage, you’re out of luck.

In recent years, over 10 million beneficiaries, or more than 20 percent of those on Medicare, have chosen private Medicare Advantage health plans over the government’s traditional fee-for-service program.

About 660,000 people nationwide – or 7 percent of Medicare Advantage enrollees – are in plans that are set to close. Between now and Jan. 1, they can switch to another private plan or join Medicare’s traditional fee-for-service program.

Medicare Advantage enrollees who do nothing and remain in the same plan in 2010 will see their monthly premiums increase an average of 32 percent, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

In addition, seniors will have fewer “zero-premium” plans next year.

According to the Baltimore Examiner, The AARP stands to win big on the current reform plan.

The 2008 AARP financial statement shows the group received nearly $653 million in royalties from private insurance companies that sold products referred by AARP in 2008, while taking in $249 million in membership dues.

Seniors have basically two choices for Medicare supplemental insurance, the first one is a government run supplement called “Medicare Advantage,” the second one is called “Medigap” insurance and is sold by private insurance companies. This medigap is what the AARP endorses, and gets royalties on.

Section 1161 of the House bill would slash payments to Medicare Advantage health plans used by 20 percent of seniors and cause them to lose some benefits, including vision and dental coverage, thus forcing them into the private insurance supplements such as AARP offers.

The good news, if there is any, is that seniors now have an alternative to the AARP.

Association of Mature Americans Citizens offers all the benefits of an AARP membership. AMAC offers discounts and medical insurance.

AMAC memberships are only $12.50, per year, for the whole family.

photo credit: Esthr

According to Rasmussen

Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

Support dropped  9% in one week. One would think that with the public firmly against the plan, that the Democrats would slow down.

American’s become wary of the bill, and as political payoff is being added to the bill almost daily, it will continue to drop.

A quick read of The Democrats’ Health Care Delusion by Rich Lowry says it all:

If it passes, people years and even decades from now will look back and ask, “What were they thinking?” It’s a rare opportunity to see a train wreck at its inception, as the conductors make the decisions with malice afterthought that will ramify disastrously.

Everyone agrees that the nation is on an unsustainable fiscal path. So Democrats will add a $2.5 trillion entitlement to hurry us further along the path. Tax hikes that could go to reducing the deficit they’ll plow into the new entitlement. Medicare cuts that could shore up Medicare’s own shaky finances, they’ll plow into the entitlement too (if the cuts happen at all).

The new entitlement will grow at a projected 8 percent a year, and it’s only through gimmickry it’s made to look deficit neutral in the first decade. The cost curve of health care will be bent up, and insurance premiums, too, will rise. For all of this, ObamaCare will still leave 24 million people without health insurance.

If nothing else, watching the Democrats sacrifice so much on behalf of this monstrosity is fascinating, appalling — and dramatic. Common sense suggests that they shouldn’t do it. The basic laws of political physics say they can’t do it. And yet on they march.

Let’s hope they dexide to rethink the plan before it’s too late.

photo credit: cobalt123

The Republicans have put forth their ideas on healthcare reform and although it’s unlikely any items would be adopted, it makes a lot more sense than the 2,000 page bill the Democrats are trying to pass.

The Patient-Doctor alliance in not partisan… but we see the that the Republican proposals do align with our vision of true reform. And they wouldn’t increase debt or lower the standard of care.

They are:

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines;

Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do today;

Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs; and

Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it’s good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

These solve the major issues facing American doctors and patients: Lowering health care costs through allowing better choices on insurance; and tort reform to end the practice of defensive medicine.

With the Democrats fully in control of congress, it’s unlikely that these will see the light of day. And unfortunately America is likely to be subjected to reform that does nothing to solve the main issues of health care.

photo credit: Andrew Aliferis

When Michael Moore sees Obamacare as an insurance company win, you know that this reform has gone off the rails.

The reform bill actually means 5 years of new taxes and cuts, before any change happens. At a trillion dollar cost over 10 years.

When government takes over the industry, no one wins.

It’s time to make your voice heard and let your elected representatives know where you stand. Americans can reform the system if doctors and patients act now and take on the challenges.

Tort reform through mediation. The end of defensive medicine. Less costly insurance through health savings accounts.

Common sense solutions that won’t bankrupt the country…

Act now before it’s forced on America.

Here’s the bill if you can find the time to read it.

Or, click here to see a side by side comparison of the house and senate bills (and Obama’s initial goals).

Another video showing the comparison here.

photo credit: Reza Vaziri

Right in the middle of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a new set of breast cancer screening recommendations has caused some anxiety for women, leaving them wondering whether or not to schedule regular mammograms or whether the new recommendations will impact their insurance policies.

The government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often is harmful, causing too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women’s odds of surviving the disease. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that it is not worth it for women to perform breast self-exams or to get routine mammograms before reaching the age of 50. The task force is an independent group of 16 experts put together by the Department of Health and Human Services.

“The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s,” said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.

The new guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies.

“This is how rationing begins. This is the little toe in the edge of the water,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “This is when you start getting a bureaucrat between you and your physician. This is what we have warned about.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a statement on Wednesday to address the confusion, saying that the recommendations will not impact government policy and should not impact private insurers’ policies,. She added that mammograms remain an important live-saving tool.

This could be the beginning of a lot of new recommendations to come… leaving one to wonder what the real agenda is.
photo credit: captainＥＯ

From Reuters

China questions costs of U.S. healthcare reform

Reuters has a good comparison in the difference between the house and senate bills:

Here are some potential sticking points as legislation advances through the Senate.

Details on the Senate version reflect a version passed by the Senate Finance Committee. Senate leaders have yet to unveil their version.

* Public Option

The House bill includes a new government-run health insurance plan that would be offered on proposed new insurance exchanges where people could shop for coverage. It is meant to compete with private insurance policies to keep prices down and reduce the number of people without health coverage.

The Senate may pass a more limited public option under which there would be a “trigger” allowing states to offer such a plan only if insurance market reforms fail to meet cost and coverage targets.

* Financing

This could be the biggest sticking point between the two chambers.

The House pays for the roughly $1 trillion price tag for its bill, which would extend coverage to an estimated 36 million uninsured Americans, chiefly by imposing a 5.4 percent surtax on wealthy people.

The Senate legislation, as approved by the Senate Finance Committee, pays for itself partly by imposing a surtax on expensive health insurance plans that offer generous coverage with small or no co-payments by the insured.

Neither chamber likes the approach taken by the other.

* Mandates

Both chambers require individuals to buy health insurance but differ on penalties. The House would impose the lesser of a 2.5 percent tax on income or the cost of the average premium on people who failed to purchase policies. The Senate would impose a maximum penalty of $750 per adult.

The Senate Finance bill has no employer mandate but it requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to pay the government a fee, up to $400, per their total employees, if any employee buys health policies with government subsidies.

The House requires firms with payrolls of more than $500,000 to help obtain insurance for their workers. Failure to provide coverage would result in fines of up to 8 percent of payroll.

* Medicaid

The Senate would expand the Medicaid healthcare program for the poor, which is jointly funded by the federal and state governments, to cover everyone up to 133 percent of the poverty income level.

The House would expand the program for everyone up to 150 percent of the poverty income level. Many state governors are worried about the cost of expanding this program to millions of people.

The states currently determine who is eligible for Medicaid and in some cases set the income limit below the poverty line.

* Abortion

This issue threatens to upset efforts by Democratic leaders to win votes for the sweeping healthcare reform.

The House bill contains a strict prohibition against using federal subsidies to purchase insurance policies that cover abortion. Abortion rights supporters have threaten to withhold support for a final bill if the language stands.

A less strict prohibition is included in Senate bills, but a group of moderate Senate Democrats favor the tougher language in the House. Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid said he believed senators could work out a compromise.

photo credit: Lydia Elle

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail.

The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

- – - – - – - – - -

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”

- – - – - – - – - -

“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses.  Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties.  The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration.  Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates.

The times are a changin’… Health Insurance is now mandatory, and the penalties will be significant for those that decide to go without.

photo credit: Still Burning