|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Sept 8, 2009 11:33:57 GMT -6
Below are some graphs from the CBO giving some information on how affordability credits will work, which can be used to estimate costs. I'm posting these mainly for research purposes. At this moment, I don't know which parts of these estimates are actually included in HR 3200, and which are just wild guesses. Clearly it is the "affordability credits" that will make up most of the costs prescribed by HR 3200. These graphics come from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) Affordability Credits(from the Center for Immigration Services) "For a family of four in the continental United States, 133% of poverty equals about $29,000 a year and 400% of poverty equals about $88,000 a year. "Number of Uninsured Legal Americans by Income(more from the CIS) "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the average cost to the federal government for affordability credits for each subsidized enrollee will be $4,600 in 2014, when the program would begin, and that this will grow to $6,000 per enrollee by 2019."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Sept 8, 2009 13:51:26 GMT -6
I'm going to try to plow through the part of HR 3200 that deals with Affordability Credits. This is where the real cost of the bill comes from. I'm just going to start by quoting several pages, and include one chart in graphic format, since that's how it appears in the text.
|
|
|
Post by judes on Sept 8, 2009 18:45:05 GMT -6
Here is a pretty good article from Matt Taibbi, the same guy who wrote that great article on Goldman Sachs for Rolling Stone. He does make some mention of the cost estimates and the credits you pointed out. It is lengthy but I thought it was great. www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/1
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Sept 9, 2009 2:16:27 GMT -6
Here is a pretty good article from Matt Taibbi, Excellent article and very comprehensive. It also further convinced me why current legislation should be defeated. There's no benefit to anyone except insurance companies, which is exactly what you'd expect given that legislators let the health insurance industry write the bill.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Sept 9, 2009 5:59:08 GMT -6
I concur. It should be defeated as currently proposed. Especially now that the public option appears gone.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Sept 9, 2009 18:08:57 GMT -6
I finally got someone else to read the passages I posted, and she came to the same conclusion I did (which I have not posted yet, but will post now.)
The Affordability Credits are open-ended on how large the taxpayer-funded subsidies to insurance companies will be. The amount an enrollee in a plan has to pay is fixed, and is defined as a fraction of their income. As income goes up, the amount the enrollee has to pay increases.
But the amount of the premiums health insurers can charge is NOT limited. And though the enrollees are required to contribute a specific amount toward their own insurance premiums, the $-amount that is not covered has no limit. The affordability "credit" paid to the insurer is everything not paid by the specific amount the enrollee must pay.
For example, if the enrollee's portion is determined to be $3,000, that's all the enrollee has to pay. It makes no difference how much the premium is, whether it's $4,000, or $20,000. The government pays the rest, whether it's another $1,000, or another $17,000.
This will RAISE insurance premium prices, not reduce them. This is nothing but an unrestricted handout of taxpayers' money to health insurers, with no true limits whatsoever.
Any private industry that is subsidized by the government raises its prices, whether it's education or housing.
This should be labeled the "No-Health-Insurers-Left-Behind" bill.
|
|