Sebelius: Insurers Will Be Punished For Telling The Truth

[Trajan]

so uhm take no.3, this is going to cost 900 billion? Thats already been blown out of the window, you know it, I know it.

The justification given in the article for identifying that estimate as a lie (which, frankly, doesn't even make sense as the offending quote is about Obama's proposal in his September 2009 speech, which presumably most people understand isn't exactly what came out of Congress later that year) is a CBO estimate of discretionary spending related to the law which supposedly hadn't been accounted for. Except that two days after releasing that estimate, the CBO clarified that indeed most of it had already been accounted for: "Thus, CBO’s discretionary baseline, which assumes that 2010 appropriations are extended with adjustments for anticipated inflation, already accounts for much of the potential discretionary spending under PPACA. In addition, there are a number of other items that could overlap some or even by a considerable amount with current law activities assumed in CBO’s baseline."

I think my favorite item in the list is #7, the other cost argument. We're told two things:

1) First that the CBO estimated that individual market premiums would be higher in a few years. Which is true and it isn't. An apples-to-apples comparison of plan costs before and after reform actually shows that prices for equivalent plans will decrease. But a great many plans in the individual market right now offer shoddy coverage, which they won't after the reforms go into effect. The end result is that the the price of the average plan will rise as the quality of coverage offered increases. So that's true. But CBO estimates that about 80% of the people in the exchanges will be receiving subsidies. CBO tells us that the "amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for nongroup coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average, than the nongroup premiums charged under current law."

In other words, the vast majority of people in the exchanges are going to be getting substantially better coverage (which will overall cost less than that same coverage would cost if offered in the non-group market today) and they'll personally be paying substantially less for it than they're paying right now for their, on average, inferior coverage.

2) We're told that in July 2009 Doug Elemendorf testified that the reform bills would bend the cost curve the wrong way. From the very article they link to:

Asked what provisions should be added, Elmendorf suggested changing the way Medicare reimburses providers to create incentives for reducing costs. He also suggested ending or limiting the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits, calling it a federal "subsidy" that encourages spending on ever-more-expensive health packages.

And it's true, in July 2009 those provisions weren't in the legislation. But they are in the bill signed by the President last March. Let me repeat that: the things Elmendorf suggested in July 2009 were necessary for bending the cost curve were put into the final bill. Using an outdated article to make the argument that Elmendorf says this law will bend the cost curve upwards is either shoddy research or outright dishonesty.

so the cost is not over 900 billion...humm I have a March source that says 940 billion and that didn't not take into account the doctor fox....?And a May source that says over a trillion....an MSM source at that...

I didn't ask you about no.7 but hey knock yourself out.

Oh and everything the CBO estimates is just that, if the economy does not follow the trajectory obama said at the time it would, any discretionary spending gets more expensive, no matter what they estimate, n'est–ce pa? CBO also takes into account the fixes working as planned, as the government plans it and implements....and I think we know how that goes.

Oh, Q- why do you think it that the dems on the campaign trial, avoid speaking of and too health care?

CBO tells us that the "amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for nongroup coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average, than the nongroup premiums charged under current law."

I see, so you believe a citizen subsidized to buy the same plan but it will cost 60% less than say some schmoe in ABC co. in a co. pooled grp plan?


And that cost of OHC overall will still remain under 900 billion dollars?

 

[Trajan]

The Democrats made some sort of backroom deal with unions to get them to drop opposition to this tax, when are we going to get the bill for that? Is the bill for that going to be a continuous extension of the temporary exemptions on those plans?

It is not a cost control until it takes effect.

Not exactly. The point of the excise tax isn't to actually tax benefits, it's to keep health plan costs below the tax's threshold, meaning wages are substituted for additional health benefits (which itself actually does generate new tax revenues).

are those plans going to be charged an excise tax, yes, or no?

if no explain. if yes, when?

The reason health benefits are relatively more attractive to a worker than equivalent wages is that equivalent wages are taxed while health benefits aren't--hence the value of instituting an excise tax on health benefits above a certain threshold.

What the unions wanted was time to re-negotiate union contracts to do exactly that--reduce the emphasis on high-cost insurance plans and substitute it for wages. The "backroom" deal is that everyone, union or not, gets time to do that, through an implementation delay of 4 years on the tax.

But again, since the point of the tax is to eliminate incentives for high-cost plans and encourage substitution of wages for health benefits, if that's happening in the absence of the tax itself (i.e. prior to its formal implementation, in the run-up to its launch) then the effect is virtually the same.

so there is no advantage to be had as a holder of a "Cadillac" HC plan holder....?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The unions wanted to reduce benefits?

I doubt that.

 

[boedicca]

Not exactly. The point of the excise tax isn't to actually tax benefits, it's to keep health plan costs below the tax's threshold,

No. It is a PRICE control, not a cost control.

ObamaCare is setting limits on prices, but does nothing to address the underlying cost structure of providing health care. If anything, the massive bureaucracy overseeing this monstrosity will just add to the cost structure.

In the end, we will see less supply and inevitable rationing as price controls destroy market incentives to produce.

 

[saveliberty]

Obama succeeded in getting a healthcare plan passed that no one, but the uninsured will like. Even the uninsured are probably going to reject it for cost reasons. So cobbled up that he will continue to receive widespread criticism until it is repealed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama succeeded in getting a healthcare plan passed that no one, but the uninsured will like. Even the uninsured are probably going to reject it for cost reasons. So cobbled up that he will continue to receive widespread criticism until it is repealed.

You are wrong in your estimate, and it will not be repealed or replaced.

 

[Greenbeard]

so the cost is not over 900 billion...humm I have a March source that says 940 billion and that didn't not take into account the doctor fox....?And a May source that says over a trillion....an MSM source at that...

The supposed "lie" is that Obama said in his September 2009 address to Congress that the reform package he was proposing would "cost around $900 billion over 10 years." Cost estimates for H.R. 3590, which became law, are somewhat beside that point. The President offered proposals estimated to cost ~$900 billion. The Senate--with tweaks from the House--passed a bill estimated to cost $940.

Oh and everything the CBO estimates is just that, if the economy does not follow the trajectory obama said at the time it would, any discretionary spending gets more expensive, no matter what they estimate, n'est–ce pa?

It sounds like you're confusing mandatory and discretionary spending.

Oh, Q- why do you think it that the dems on the campaign trial, avoid speaking of and too health care?

Because having a dialogue about this in any meaningful way has become nearly impossible, I presume. Even on a discussion forum like this.

I see, so you believe a citizen subsidized to buy the same plan but it will cost 60% less than say some schmoe in ABC co. in a co. pooled grp plan?

The comparison is to coverage offered in the individual market now.

are those plans going to be charged an excise tax, yes, or no?

if no explain. if yes, when?

All plans above the threshold begin paying taxes on the portion of the plan above the threshold starting in 2018.

so there is no advantage to be had as a holder of a "Cadillac" HC plan holder....?

I don't know what you're asking.

The unions wanted to reduce benefits?

I doubt that.

Of course not, they opposed the excise tax and favored the House's surtax on the wealthy. They lost that battle.

No. It is a PRICE control, not a cost control.

Ending a tax privileged status is not a price control by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[boedicca]

Obama succeeded in getting a healthcare plan passed that no one, but the uninsured will like. Even the uninsured are probably going to reject it for cost reasons. So cobbled up that he will continue to receive widespread criticism until it is repealed.

The uninsured aren't going to like it either. All this means is that it will be more difficult than it is now to get an appointment as there is nothing in the plan that will increase the supply of doctors.

 

[Greenbeard]

The uninsured aren't going to like it either. All this means is that it will be more difficult than it is now to get an appointment as there is nothing in the plan that will increase the supply of doctors.

Honestly, have you ever looked at it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so the cost is not over 900 billion...humm I have a March source that says 940 billion and that didn't not take into account the doctor fox....?And a May source that says over a trillion....an MSM source at that...

The supposed "lie" is that Obama said in his September 2009 address to Congress that the reform package he was proposing would "cost around $900 billion over 10 years." Cost estimates for H.R. 3590, which became law, are somewhat beside that point. The President offered proposals estimated to cost ~$900 billion. The Senate--with tweaks from the House--passed a bill estimated to cost $940.

Oh and everything the CBO estimates is just that, if the economy does not follow the trajectory obama said at the time it would, any discretionary spending gets more expensive, no matter what they estimate, n'est–ce pa?

It sounds like you're confusing mandatory and discretionary spending.



Because having a dialogue about this in any meaningful way has become nearly impossible, I presume. Even on a discussion forum like this.




The comparison is to coverage offered in the individual market now.




All plans above the threshold begin paying taxes on the portion of the plan above the threshold starting in 2018.



I don't know what you're asking.

The unions wanted to reduce benefits?

I doubt that.

Of course not, they opposed the excise tax and favored the House's surtax on the wealthy. They lost that battle.

No. It is a PRICE control, not a cost control.

Ending a tax privileged status is not a price control by any stretch of the imagination.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un505mz35dY]YouTube - 3 Reasons Health Care Reform Won't Cut The Deficit By One Thin Dime.[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seriously Greenbeard, I do not get why you keep focusing on Obama's proposal when I keep talking about his promises.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqOZE4rLn48]YouTube - Obama: I can get $4 trillion in savings by slowing cost growth[/ame]

 

[Greenbeard]

Seriously Greenbeard, I do not get why you keep focusing on Obama's proposal when I keep talking about his promises.

You're not doing much talking at all, as far as I can tell. What is it you want to talk about?

 

[boedicca]

The uninsured aren't going to like it either. All this means is that it will be more difficult than it is now to get an appointment as there is nothing in the plan that will increase the supply of doctors.

Honestly, have you ever looked at it?

Yes, I have.

I also understand business, economics, and queuing theory.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes, I have.

You know I can tell, right? It was really just a rhetorical question.

edit// I'd encourage you to go to THOMAS and look at the handful of bills introduced to address the primary care physician shortage this session. You'll see that the two main bills on the subject are the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2009 and the Preserving Patient Access to Primary Care Act of 2009, both of which were introduced in both chambers of Congress. Do those do anything to address our physician shortage issues?

 

[MaggieMae]

See the link for why all of the above qualify as "empty promises" and outright lies. I already posted about numero uno in this thread but there is more info at the link.

Enjoy...

Don't believe everything you read, especially when it's poorly researched.

Too bad for you Reason Magazine is always well researched.

Any kind of "research" (i.e., the 7 points listed) is completely speculative at this point.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh Puh-leeeeze.

There are no cost savings in Medicare. It is headed towards insolvency very soon:

While the financial outlook for Medicare in this year’s report is substantially improved relative to last year, further reforms will be needed. It is expected that the HI Trust Fund balance will fall below one year’s projected expenditure beginning in 2012, which means the test for short-range financial adequacy is not met. And it is projected that SMI will continue to put increasing pressure on the federal budget and beneficiaries in the years ahead, though to a much lesser extent than was projected last year prior to the ACA. Over the next 75 years, SMI costs are expected to average 3.3 percent of GDP, which is 1.4 percentage points higher than the SMI cost share of GDP in 2009.

Trustees Report Summary

That is a report on basic projected costs for Medicare, which I've emphasized over and over again INCLUDE the costs for standard Medicare funding to cover subsidizing Medicare ADVANTAGE, which is where immediate cost savings will occur. Nobody has promised that the entire Medicare program will be solvent within the near future. But with the right surgery to close loopholes, it would be well on its way at least.

Medicare Advantage Plans

(6/9/10)- The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent congressional agency estimates that the government pays private insurance companies an average of 9% more to operate Medicare Advantage programs than it costs the government to run traditional Medicare.

Insurers that sell Medicare Advantage plans must submit their 2011 bids to the government, and because the government is cutting back on the subsidies that it pays to these carriers, it is expected that they will pass along some fairly substantial premium increases to their members.

The rate the government will pay these insurers is frozen for 2011 at 2010 levels. Starting in 2012, the new health care law calls for a gradual reduction in government payments to the insurers, totaling $136 billion by the year 2020.

Some of the insurers are planning to cut back vision, dental and prescription benefits. The administration has sent a letter to 4 of the larger plans warning them against increasing premiums and co-payments for their members.

 

[boedicca]

You are neglecting that it also doesn't include the inevitable doc fixes that Congress will pass each year.

Medicare is a ponzi scheme that is starting to unravel. With a low birth rate, there aren't enough new stooges to pay into the system (which is one of the motivations to corral illegals and make the pay).

 

[MaggieMae]

The BECK Administration?

*snicker*

MaggieMoron cannot tell the difference between an infotainer and an elected official.

IF you paid any attention, instead of just seeing RED whenever I post something, you would know that indeed I did.

"...what is to prohibit the Beck administration from doing the same thing when he gets elected?"

"... Is that a little dangling carrot I see?"

In other words, it was obvious to me he was just inviting a comment such as mine. Do you enjoy looking like a stupid ***** all the time?

 

[MaggieMae]

Is that a little dangling carrot I see?

Thanks for the heads up as to where you're really coming from. Beck & Palin 2012? Sure.

First, Beck is not going to run.
Second, even if he does I will not vote for him.

I used Beck as an example because I know no one would support his policies if they are sane. This enabled me to point out that anyone who would support Obama, but not Beck, has a double standard.

Thanks for playing though.

Ouch, setting traps and snaring partisan hacks is so easy around here at times

Trap? Riiight. You need to do better than that. But still not an impossibility, sir, with the number of right wing loons running amok these days.

Draft Beck - Glenn Beck for President 2012

 

[boedicca]

You are a nasty piece of work.

Beck is an infotainer. Speculating on what his "only in your fantasy world" administration would do bears nothing on reality. Really, given your obsession, your should get some professional help. He is a married man.