MSNBC Reports: "The day after the Congressional Budget Office released its new estimate of a $1.5 trillion budget deficit for this fiscal year, CBO chief Douglas Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that health care is the biggest driver of the budget problem."
From Think Progress we learn some more about what repealing the Affordable Care Act would cost us:
– 32 million Americans will lose coverage compared to current law: “Under H.R. 2, about 32 million fewer nonelderly people would have health insurance in 2019, leaving a total of about 54 million nonelderly people uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, compared with a projected share of 94 percent under current law (and 83 percent currently).” (p. 8-9)
– Increases deficit by $230 billion over 10 years: “Consequently, over the 2012–2021 period, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues is likely to be an increase in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes to CBO’s and JCT’s projections for that period.” (p. 5)
– Huge deficit increases over next decade: “Correspondingly, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2 would increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. For the decade beginning after 2021, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a share of the economy would probably be somewhat larger.” (p. 7)
– Individuals would pay more for health insurance: “Although premiums in the individual market would be lower, on average, under H.R. 2 than under current law, many people would end up paying more for health insurance— because under current law, the majority of enrollees purchasing coverage in that market would receive subsidies via the insurance exchanges, and H.R. 2 would eliminate those subsidies.” (p. 9-10)
– Average health care benefits would be worse: “In particular, if H.R. 2 was enacted… the average insurance policy in this market would cover a smaller share of enrollees’ costs for health care and a slightly narrower range of benefits.” (p.9)
– Premiums for employer-sponsored insurance would increase: “Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through large employers would be slightly higher under H.R. 2 than under current law, reflecting the net impact of many relatively small changes.” (p. 10)
The typical American household made less money last year than the typical household made a full decade ago.
To me, that’s the big news from the Census Bureau’s annual report on income, poverty and health insurance, which was released this morning. Median household fell to $50,303 last year, from $52,163 in 2007. In 1998, median income was $51,295. All these numbers are adjusted for inflation. Read it all at the Economix Blog - NYTimes.com
Once again we are witnessing, firsthand, the conflicting American impulses of expanding rights to the people on the one hand, and robbing them blind on the other. America fell because of greed, the bottom line, and the eternal quest for profits above all else. We are witnessing the greatest upward redistribution of wealth in American history, with the greatest gap between rich and poor since the Great Depression. Official unemployment flirts with the 10% mark. Meanwhile, the real unemployment rate, which includes those who stopped looking for jobs, and the underemployed who are forced to settle for part-time work, is close to 17%. Wages and benefits are decreasing. More than 35 million people are on food stamps, and 40% of recipients are working families. More than 1 million schoolchildren in the land of plenty are homeless. And even the most creditworthy borrowers are falling behind on their credit card and mortgage payments.
A primary reason for this economic suffering is that corporations, particularly health insurance companies, are stealing our money. They have more of it because we have less. Unregulated and emboldened, they became far too powerful, just like the 1920s. Insurance companies are enjoying record profits because of ever-increasing premiums, and families are going bankrupt because they cannot afford to get sick.
If healthcare reform is to succeed, its proponents must reframe the issue as one of nationwide criminality. The current health insurance system is a recurring act of national theft. These corporations are feeding off America like vultures, robbing from common people and crippling us in our ability to live our lives with happiness, security and dignity. Reform of the system, with a public option, is like an anti-theft device for the country, pure and simple.
And this time, we cannot blame the sideshow that is the Republican Party. We know about their agitation at the town hall meetings. Plus, they’re greedy and care little about the needs of everyday people, or using government as a tool for positive social change. But most of all, the GOP is not in power. The Democrats control the White House, a huge majority in the House of Representatives, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The Democrats’ problem is that they do not have the will. As a corporatist party like the Republicans, they depend on the sponsorship and patronage of those financial interests that are causing our collective suffering. The will of the people be damned. If Obama refuses to change this reality in the party which he leads, then he is just another politician who, as Hillary Clinton once said, gives good speeches.
And yet, it was predictable that this day would come at some point, that the base would have to hold the President’s feet to the fire, and show that they are for real. Perhaps he is begging the base to provide the cover he needs to "make me do it", as F.D.R. once said.
One thing is for sure: If the Democratic base does not force the Democrats to pass real deal health reform as they promised, then the Democrats will be finished. And maybe that is the price we must pay for progressive ideals to survive. Read it all at BlackCommentator.com
People with robust health insurance are putting off doctors’ appointments and skimping on prescriptions because they can’t afford the increasing costs of copayments and deductibles, according to managers of patient-assistance hot lines in Massachusetts. “Previously it was the uninsured,’’ Rukavina said. “Now we are seeing people with insurance, but they are struggling to pay their bills.’’
The problem appears particularly acute for people with chronic illnesses such as diabetes, asthma, and cancer. They make frequent visits to doctors and often take multiple medications.
The issue has become so widespread that state lawmakers have scheduled a hearing Wednesday to address aspects of the problem, including a proposal to allow residents with chronic illnesses to buy prescribed medications and medical devices without facing a copayment or deductible.
As healthcare costs rise and the recession’s grip has tightened, more employers have slashed their health costs by shifting more costs onto their workers, according to Families USA, a Washington-based consumer group. As a result, more employees are shouldering heftier copayments. Read more at The Boston Globe
At a glance, the plight of these 47 million appears to be much if not most of what needs fixing. But, as Chronicle business columnist Loren Steffy observes in his column this past Sunday (“Insured but not covered”), things are far from copacetic for those millions of Americans supposedly adequately covered by health plans through their employers.
They are not. As Steffy puts it, this umbrella leaks, and thousands of families are going under financially because their health insurance does not perform as advertised. Steffy cites a study in the American Journal of Medicine showing that two-thirds of all bankruptcies over the past six years were related to medical expenses, and that a surprising three-fourths of those filing for bankruptcy for medical-related reasons had medical insurance when they did so.
Or perhaps this is not so surprising. Certainly it will not astonish anyone who has attempted to navigate the maze of co-pays, deductibles, explanations of benefits and frequently inscrutable bills from hospitals, laboratories and other care providers. For the unwary and uninformed health-care consumer, these can all be a source of emotional and financial stress on top of whatever medical condition may afflict them or a family member.
Harvard Professor David Himmelstein , author of the study mentioned above, doesn’t mince words. “Private health insurance is a defective product, he says, “akin to an umbrella that melts in the rain .”
The notion of competition in the health-care insurance industry is mostly myth, Himmelstein contends. For most consumers, the choices are limited by what their employers offer and at what cost they choose to offer it. For some lucky ones the choices may be made broader by the option of insuring through a spouse. Read more at the Houston Chronicle
Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, U.S. researchers reported Thursday in a report they said demonstrates that healthcare reform is on the wrong track.
More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.
The United States is embarking on an overhaul of its healthcare system, now a patchwork of public programs such as Medicare for the elderly and disabled and employer-sponsored health insurance that leaves 15 percent of the population with no coverage.
The researchers and some consumer advocates said the study showed the proposals under the most serious consideration are unlikely to help many Americans. They are pressing for a so-called single payer plan, in which one agency, usually the government, coordinates health coverage.
"Expanding private insurance and calling it health reform will fail to prevent financial catastrophe for hundreds of thousands of Americans every year," Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen said in a statement.
"Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year," the report reads.
"Only single-payer national health insurance can make universal, comprehensive coverage affordable by saving the hundreds of billions we now waste on insurance overhead and bureaucracy."
The researchers studied 2,134 random families who filed for bankruptcy between January and April in 2007, before the current recession began.
Read more at Yahoo! News
Accelerating health-care premiums and sharp revenue shortfalls due to the recession are forcing some small companies to choose between dropping health insurance or laying off workers -- or staying in business at all. Read More at WSJ.com:
"Family physicians are seeing evidence of the recession's impact on access to health care for Americans, and are offering more charity care, lower fees and free screenings to a growing number of needy patients, according to a survey published on May 19 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
In a national poll of Academy members, signs of the negative impact of the recession on health care included an increase in appointment cancellations, reported by 58 percent of respondents, and patients expressing concerns over their ability to pay for health care, reported by almost 90 percent of those surveyed.
Other signs of the recession's impact were an increase in patients' stress symptoms, reported by 87 percent of doctors surveyed, and an increase in the number of uninsured patients, noted by 73 percent of respondents. The majority of doctors surveyed (66 percent) were acting to help ease the burden by changing patients to generic prescriptions and providing discounted or free services." Read More...:
"Even as rising unemployment strips people of health insurance, sending many to emergency departments for care, doctors on the front lines say the lingering recession is also prompting an unexpected outcome.
More patients, they say, are refusing potentially costly procedures ranging from tests to confirm heart attacks to overnight stays to monitor dangerous infections." Read more...
By Robert Reich | Salon
Symbolism counts in Washington, and Obama's request that his Cabinet officers come up with $100 million in spending cuts will be played up by the White House as the beginning of a major effort to trim unnecessary government spending. It's part of the president's effort to reach out to Republicans (and calm the nerves of "blue-dog" Democrats) worried about all the money the administration has spent and still wants to spend -- $787 billion on the stimulus, $700 billion committed to the bank and auto bailouts, and, most important, $3.5 trillion for the next 10 years, including universal healthcare. Throw in the cost of a cap-and-trade system to control climate change and you're talking big money. Over the longer term, Obama must be careful not to put entitlement programs on the chopping block as part of a "grand bargain" to elicit Republican support for healthcare and cap-and-trade. Social Security is not in dire straits; it can be made flush for the next 75 years by ever-so-slightly lifting the ceiling on the portion of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes (and if Democrats are reluctant to do that on incomes over $100,000, then they could do so on incomes over $250,000).
Medicaid and Medicare are in trouble because healthcare costs are rising so fast, which argues for healthcare reform rather than cuts in these important programs. Yet if healthcare reform has any prayer of controlling the rising tide of healthcare costs, the plan must allow beneficiaries to opt into a public insurance plan -- something Republicans and the healthcare establishment are determined to fight. So it's critically important that the Senate wrap healthcare into a reconciliation bill that can be enacted by a majority vote in the Senate.
Obama should fast-track healthcare and stop trying to court Republicans. Every House Republican and all but three Senate Republicans voted against the stimulus; all Republicans in both houses voted against the budget. During the recess they hosted "tea parties" claiming that Americans are overtaxed. Over the weekend, House Minority Leader John Boehner called the idea of carbon-induced climate change "almost comical."
Marcia D. Greenberger:
This January, Audra officially joined the ranks of the 17 million uninsured women across the nation. On a dwindling income and without health insurance, it became much more difficult to manage her chronic conditions--diabetes and hypertension--which require regular medication and a strict diet. 'I was at the point where I was compromising with the food, and compromising with the medicine,' Audra said. 'I stopped taking my blood sugar in the morning because I knew that I couldn't do anything to make it better.'
Audra's plight demonstrates how much these tough economic times have exacerbated the already severe problems that more and more people face in our current health system. A new U.S. Labor Department unemployment report shows that 663,000 more Americans lost their jobs in March--raising the nation's unemployment rate to a 26-year high of 8.5 percent. For many who have lost their jobs, they've also lost their employer-sponsored health insurance benefits. In our broken health care system, nearly one in five women is uninsured. Even for those who have health insurance, women are more likely than men to have health coverage that has too many gaps, including large co-pays, life-time limits, and exclusions or limitations in needed services like mental health care or prescription drugs. Since women, on average, have lower incomes than men, they are at particular risk of financial barriers to care; one in four women says that she is unable to pay her medical bills, and women are more likely than men to delay or go without needed health care because of cost.
Sacramento Business Journal:: About 3.7 million working-age adults have already lost insurance due to the recession and 500,000 more will become uninsured over the next four years if there are no changes in health policy — even if the economy recovers, according to a new report by researchers at University of California Berkeley.
Growing numbers of uninsured will mean higher costs for financially strapped cities and states, decreased productivity and earnings, and higher costs for employers and individuals who do have coverage, concludes Ken Jacobs, primary author and chair of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education.
About 500,000 working-age Californians have lost insurance since the recession began a little over a year ago, for a total of about 6 million uninsured. An additional 100,000 will lose insurance by the end of 2012 without health care reform, even if the economy bounces back to pre-recession levels, he said.
Total numbers will be higher because the estimates do not include children or the elderly. The report uses data from the March supplement for the Current Population Survey conducted by the Census Bureau.
Released as Congress debates health-care reform initiatives in President Obama’s proposed federal budget, the report documents what could happen if significant policy changes fail.
If the auto industry or other significant segments of the U.S. economy go down, the landscape will be much worse, Jacobs said.
Senate Democrats are increasingly receptive to using a controversial budget shortcut to ease passage of health-care reform legislation, a shift in stance encouraged by the White House but denounced by Republicans, who say the maneuver is an unfair partisan trick.
The procedure, known as reconciliation, is included in the House's budget blueprint but is not in the Senate version. Both resolutions are expected to win easy passage this week and will be combined into a single fiscal framework later this month.
A new study came out today from the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education called 'No Recovery in Sight: Health Coverage for Working-Age Adults in the United States and California'. The report claims that half a million people in California have lost their health insurance coverage during the recession Controversial Issues:
1. Will everyone be required to buy health insurance? If so, that's called an "individual mandate". During the campaign, then candidate Obama objected to the idea of requiring all adults to get health insurance saying that he thought people would want to buy it if it was affordable but you wouldn't have to force them to do it. The California health reform effort last year failed in part because of concerns people had about an individual mandate -- but Massachusetts has one and so far it has worked pretty well.
2. How much will we have to pay to get coverage if a bill is passed? Will it be affordable? What is affordable anyway? For many families, $500 a month for a family premium breaks the bank and keeps food off the table. No one knows the answers to these questions right now.
3. Can we reform the health insurance industry so that they can't refuse coverage if you've ever been sick? That is called "medical underwriting" and "pre-existing conditions". Last week, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the BlueCross BlueShield Association (BCBSA) wrote a letter to the president offering to drop those practices if everyone was required to have insurance. It's a start. They certainly didn't offer to do that back in 1993 when the Clintons were trying to reform health care.
4. A lot of people think that if we offer health plans to people who don't get insurance through their employers, that there ought to be a choice between a private insurance plan and some sort of publicly administered plan. That "public plan option" is being fiercely debated in Congress right now. The private insurance plans worry that they can't compete successfully with a public plan for a whole lot of reasons I won't go into here, so they are opposing it. Look for this to be huge source of debate in the next few months. But do yourself a favor -- do your homework about it and don't believe everything you hear, like it would be socialism or government telling your doctors what to do. Read about the public plan idea and see if it makes sense to you.
5. Should our health care benefits be taxed? Or should the portion our employers pay be taxed? This is a hot potato for sure. The problem with this idea is that there is a LOT of money to be collected by taxing the benefits of people who have insurance to help pay for those who do not. Very tricky.
These are just a few of the issues that will need to be resolved before we get health coverage for everyone. Despite the fact that this is complicated, all you need to do to answer your own questions is look around you -- do you know someone who has insurance but still can't get the care they need? People who are a paycheck away from losing what they have? People who have to rely on the emergency room because they have no other way to get care? If you do, then you understand the meaning of "No recovery in sight" UNLESS we pass health reform.
"WASHINGTON, March 30 (Reuters) - Reform of the U.S. healthcare system is vital this year because of growing costs and worsening care, the Health and Human Services Department said in a report on Monday.
The HHS report, published at www.healthreform.gov, compiles findings of dozens of studies that have been used to justify calls for a complete overhaul of the healthcare system."
While the need for change is not controversial, conservatives and liberals differ on how that should be approached. President Barack Obama has said he wants legislation this year but is leaving the details up to Congress to work out.
"Today's report outlines the high cost of waiting to fix a system that has left too many Americans without the affordable, quality care they deserve," HHS spokeswoman Jenny Backus said in a statement.
The report points out that the United States spent $2.2 trillion on healthcare in 2007, or $7,421 per capita. Healthcare accounts for more than 16 percent of gross domestic product, nearly twice the average of other developed nations.
Healthcare costs doubled from 1996 to 2006, and are projected to rise to 25 percent of GDP in 2025; 49 percent by 2082 if something does not change.
"Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last nine years," the report reads. "As a result of these crushing health care costs, American businesses are losing their ability to compete in the global marketplace."
More than 160 million Americans get health insurance through employers. "Health care at General Motors puts the company at a $5 billion disadvantage against Toyota (7203.T), which spends $1,400 less on health care per vehicle," the report added -- quoting former General Motors Corp's (GM.N) chief executive officer Rick Wagoner. [ID:nSP207882]
"In spite of the vast resources invested, the health care system has not yet reached the goal of high-quality care," the report said.
"Across 37 performance indicators, the United States achieved an overall score of 65 out of a possible 100," it said, citing the non-profit Commonwealth Foundation. The Obama administration has relied heavily on such reports in setting its healthcare strategy.
"The net worth of American households fell by the largest amount in more than a half-century of record keeping during the fourth quarter of last year.
The Federal Reserve said Thursday that household net worth dropped by a record 9 percent from the level in the third quarter."
Time to bring this back from 2005:
"The Canadian plan has been a significant advantage for investing in Canada," says GM Canada spokesman David Patterson, noting that in the United States, GM spends $1,400 per car on health benefits. Indeed, with the provinces sharing 75 percent of the cost of Canadian healthcare, it’s no surprise that GM, Ford and Chrysler have all been shifting car production across the border at such a rate that the name "Motor City" should belong to Windsor, not Detroit.
Just two years ago, GM Canada’s CEO Michael Grimaldi sent a letter co-signed by Canadian Autoworkers Union president Buzz Hargrave to a Crown Commission considering reforms of Canada’s 35-year-old national health program that said, "The public healthcare system significantly reduces total labour costs for automobile manufacturing firms, compared to their cost of equivalent private insurance services purchased by U.S.-based automakers." That letter also said it was "vitally important that the publicly funded healthcare system be preserved and renewed, on the existing principles of universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public administration," and went on to call not just for preservation but for an “updated range of services." CEOs of the Canadian units of Ford and DaimlerChrysler wrote similar encomiums endorsing the national health system." How can the same corporations that in Canada recognize the bottom-line logic of a national health system be so opposed to the idea here? Good question. And the answer is.... One answer is ideology. The notion of having the government take over an industry that represents about 15 percent of the U.S. economy gives U.S. executives the willies. But in backing insurance company interests, GM runs counter to both its own business interests and the sentiments of many customers. Wonder if GM U.S wishes they had made a different choice now.
John F. Wasik - Bloomberg.com:
It’s time to stop kicking sand in the face of single-payer health care. It may be the strongest solution around to insure every American at a lower cost.
After decades of industry campaigns against this model -- dubbed by its critics as “socialized” medicine -- it’s important to stop whining and evaluate the many economic benefits. Health care is a fundamental human right. [...] Health-care costs have become a crippling personal-finance burden for 45 million uninsured and 25 million underinsured Americans. Those outside of the fractured employer-based system are only one illness away from financial ruin. Lose your job and most likely your health coverage will disappear unless you want to pay exorbitant rates. And it’s getting worse. Because of the growing jobless rate, some 14,000 Americans are losing their coverage daily, according to the Center for American Progress Action Fund. A single-payer plan would cover everybody regardless of employment situation and save money by cutting out middlemen. [...] -- Since 1999, average premiums for family coverage have climbed 119 percent, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit that tracks health-care issues. Out-of-pocket contributions for workers have more than doubled in that period. -- Employers are asking more from employees and covering less. More than 93 percent of workers with family coverage need to contribute to the total premium. -- Without universal health-care, the number of uninsured will rise to 54 million from 45 million today over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. -- Every 30 seconds, someone in the U.S. files for bankruptcy because of their medical bills. An estimated 18,000 Americans die each year from lack of insurance. [...]In a “Medicare-for-all” program, care would be publicly financed and privately delivered. You would keep your own health- care providers and hospital. The government wouldn’t dictate who your doctor is or choose your hospital. It would be acting more like a huge purchaser bargaining for the best treatment and drugs at the lowest price. [...] There would be a national market and regulation for health policies and no one could be denied affordable coverage. No more “cherry-picking” of only the healthiest people and rejection of the sickest or those with chronic conditions. [...]Neighborhoods and communities are imperiled when health-care expenses drive everyone to economic ruin. More than 1.5 million families lose their homes every year to foreclosure due to medical bills. [...] If Congress doesn’t act soon, the fiscal and social sacrifices in the future will be draconian. Single-payer haters don’t like the idea of seeing who will provide the highest-quality, low-cost coverage and will do anything to shut down the discussion. But let’s at least put this free-market comparison to the test. (John F. Wasik, co-author of “iMoney,” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
"'They are laying off older workers to reduce their pension exposure and their health-plan exposure,' he said. 'The young people are being hired in without medical plans and pension plans.'"
|
