Just 23% Believe Health Care Costs Will Go Down if Reform Pa

Quote :

Americans are fairly evenly divided on the health care reform proposals working their way through Congress, but most remain convinced that the plans will raise costs and hurt the quality of the care they receive.

Link

I'm all for reform, but not what the adminitration currently has proposed.

How do the rest of you feel?

One of the problems with the current bill, at least the House version, which seems to be the model, is that it lacks necessary cost-cutting. The separately proposed IMAC would help, but even that is quite weak. It's left up to the amendment process and whatever comes of Committee to add in more cost-cutting mechanisms. As it stands currently it's a fairly tepid healthcare reform. It would extend universal coverage and begin moving out of the employer-based insurance model, both of which I consider very good and necessary things, but wouldn't substantially lower costs at this point. However, I don't see any reason to believe it would hurt the quality of care in this country.

The House Democrats bill mandates employers must pay a minimum of 72.5% of health insurance premiums for individuals and 65% for families. If an employer fails to do so, then it will be subject to a job and wage crushing 8 percent payroll tax.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

The House Democrats bill mandates employers must pay a minimum of 72.5% of health insurance premiums for individuals and 65% for families. If an employer fails to do so, then it will be subject to a job and wage crushing 8 percent payroll tax.

For employers who already offer insurance to employees, this probably won't affect most of them.

Where this will be difficult is for industries that historically rely on low skill low compensation employees who do not receive healthcare as it is. Much of that work will be eliminated, shipped overseas or done by illegal immigrants (who obviously don't receive healthcare insurance).

So this bill could probably harm some of the working poor more than it helps them.

Another thing that drives me nuts about this bill is it does not let the people cheap cheap/bare bones insurance. The have to buy insurance that covers things that really are not necessary.

Wyatt Earp wrote:

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

The House Democrats bill mandates employers must pay a minimum of 72.5% of health insurance premiums for individuals and 65% for families. If an employer fails to do so, then it will be subject to a job and wage crushing 8 percent payroll tax.

For employers who already offer insurance to employees, this probably won't affect most of them.

Where this will be difficult is for industries that historically rely on low skill low compensation employees who do not receive healthcare as it is. Much of that work will be eliminated, shipped overseas or done by illegal immigrants (who obviously don't receive healthcare insurance).

So this bill could probably harm some of the working poor more than it helps them.

Another thing that drives me nuts about this bill is it does not let the people cheap cheap/bare bones insurance. The have to buy insurance that covers things that really are not necessary.

Regarding your last sentence. What part of health insurance do you believe is unnecessary?

Wyatt Earp wrote:

For employers who already offer insurance to employees, this probably won't affect most of them.

The majority of small firms (those with less than 200 employees) don’t meet the Democrats' standards. Up to 61% of small employers fail the Democrat test for family coverage and up to 21% of small employers fail the Democrat test for single coverage.
Even larger firms, those most often assumed to be able to afford more, fail to meet the minimum contribution requirements. Up to 40% of large firms do not pass the test for family coverage and up to 21% of large firms fail the test for single coverage.

gringaloca wrote:

Regarding your last sentence. What part of health insurance do you believe is unnecessary?

I will see if I can find the Yahoo article discussing this. The article mentioned that many procedures which were more "cosmetic" than health related would have to be covered. The one that sticks out in my memory was the article noted similarities to in New Hampshire (or maybe it was a different New England state) where insurance policies sold in NH most over coverage for hair transplants. Let me see what I can find. It has been a while since the article was posted on Yahoo but I hope they haven't taken it down by now.

Even for the companies that can meet the 72.5% mandate, they won't be able to maintain employment levels, because of uncontrolled increases in rates. Rates increases are due to fraud and outrageous malpractice insurance rates incurred by doctors and hospitals. Nothing in hr 3200 addresses that problem, and without that, the whole thing is doomed to failure.

In fact, the mandatory 5 year consultations for the elderly, increase costs for everybody.

Roy Rogers wrote:

Even for the companies that can meet the 72.5% mandate, they won't be able to maintain employment levels, because of uncontrolled increases in rates. Rates increases are due to fraud and outrageous malpractice insurance rates incurred by doctors and hospitals. Nothing in hr 3200 addresses that problem, and without that, the whole thing is doomed to failure.

In fact, the mandatory 5 year consultations for the elderly, increase costs for everybody.

Wyatt Earp wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

Regarding your last sentence. What part of health insurance do you believe is unnecessary?

I will see if I can find the Yahoo article discussing this. The article mentioned that many procedures which were more "cosmetic" than health related would have to be covered. The one that sticks out in my memory was the article noted similarities to in New Hampshire (or maybe it was a different New England state) where insurance policies sold in NH most over coverage for hair transplants. Let me see what I can find. It has been a while since the article was posted on Yahoo but I hope they haven't taken it down by now.

Cosmetic procedures would be silly, I agree, unless it was due to an accident or breast cancer victim, etc. Canadian insurance doesn't cover cosmetic procedures. There's no reason for us to. Of course Americans are so vain.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_s_math_analysis

Obama must have failed math..

gringaloca wrote:

Cosmetic procedures would be silly, I agree, unless it was due to an accident or breast cancer victim, etc. Canadian insurance doesn't cover cosmetic procedures. There's no reason for us to. Of course Americans are so vain.

I still haven't found the article. Basically the article said that lobbyist hit the Obama plan hard (just like they did in NH) to make sure thier industry would be served by have laws passed which mandated procedures which benefit their industry.

I wonder if just having basic bare bones Passport insurance available for those who cannot pay would be enough?