WASHINGTON— A senior Democratic senator who helped write President Barack Obama’s health care law stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it’s headed for a “train wreck” because of bumbling implementation.
“I just see a huge train wreck coming down,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Obama’s health care chief during a routine budget hearing that suddenly turned tense.
Baucus is the first top Democrat to publicly voice fears about the rollout of the new health care law, designed to bring coverage to some 30 million uninsured people through a mix of government programs and tax credits for private insurance. Polls show that Americans remain confused by the complex law, and even many uninsured people are skeptical they will be helped by benefits that start next year.
A six-term veteran, Baucus expects a tough re-election in 2014. He’s still trying to recover from approval ratings that nosedived amid displeasure with the health care law in his home state.
The apparent costs of Obamacare are going up. And up, and up. How much additional cost will the average private payer see in the coming year? The Society of Actuaries, according to The Wall Street Journal, has issued a new report “warning that the cost of medical claims in the new individual-insurance market could rise by an average of 32%per person over the first few years the law is in place” with changes “very different depending on the state” (emphasis added). The Associated Press describes the study as a “political headache” for the Obama Administration rather than a headache for the average American.
With numbers like these it’s not surprising that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has finally owned up to the fact that the so-called Affordable Care Act may be producing something less affordable for U.S. citizens. However, she sells it as citizens purchasing a higher value product overall, which, for the poor, is subsidized by the government. In reality, government subsidies for health care mean that someone—usually from the richer side of the equation—ends up paying to cover for the poorer masses. “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” said Secretary Sebelius to reporters on Tuesday (emphasis added). “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”
“Ms. Sebelius added that those customers currently pay more for their health care if their plans have high out-of-pocket costs, high deductibles or exclude particular types of coverage, such as mental health treatment,” reports Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal piece.
What Secretary Sebelius means by a “really fully insured product” is a low up-front cost plan where the true price of health care treatments are hidden from the consumer. Eliminating high deductibles in favor of a more indirect system exacerbates the economic effects that third-party payment has already had on health care, causing ballooning costs as customers purchase medical treatment irrespective of its true price.
“The people the law intended to help are actually being hurt,” Chris Self, owner of Pathway Health Insurance Experts, recently told Fox News. Yet some media outlets continue to champion the benefits of a law which belies its moniker. “In its third year, the Affordable Care Act will give Americans access to the health insurance they need,” reads the subtitle for oneUSA Today editorial by two Democrat representatives “In the three years since it passed Congress, the healthlaw has helped dramatically slow the growth in premium increases by requiring insurers to justify large rate hikes and spend at least 80% of premiums on health care,” write Representatives Sander Levin and Jim McDermott for USA Today. But not all the provisions of Obamacare are active yet. Again, Rep. Levin and Rep. McDermott further the notion that subsidies will offset the costs of predicted increases. “What’s more, many …read more Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said definitive data on costs will not be available until later this year when private health plans become authorized to sell federally subsidized coverage on new state-based online marketplaces, known as exchanges
J. Scott Applewhite/AP President Obama signs the health-care bill into law in this March 2010 photo. A new study suggests medical-claims costs for individual policy holders will jump an average 32 percent.
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
WASHINGTON — A new study finds that insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims under President Barack Obama‘s health-care overhaul.
What does that mean for you? It could increase premiums for at least some Americans. If you are uninsured, or you buy your policy directly from an insurance company, you should pay attention.
But if you have an employer plan, like most workers and their families, odds are you don’t have much to worry about. The estimates from the Society of Actuaries could turn into a political headache for the Obama administration at a time when much of the country remains skeptical of the Affordable Care Act.
The administration is questioning the study, saying it doesn’t give a full picture — and costs will go down. Actuaries are financial risk professionals who conduct long-range cost estimates for pension plans, insurance companies and government programs.
The study says claims costs will go up largely because sicker people will join the insurance pool. That’s because the law forbids insurers from turning down those with pre-existing medical problems, effective Jan. 1. Everyone gets sick sooner or later, but sicker people also use more health care services.
“Claims cost is the most important driver of health care premiums,” said Kristi Bohn, an actuary who worked on the study. Spending on sicker people and other high-cost groups will overwhelm an influx of younger, healthier people into the program, said the report.
The Obama administration challenged the design of the study, saying it focused only on one piece of the puzzle and ignored cost relief strategies in the law, such as tax credits to help people afford premiums and special payments to insurers who attract an outsize share of the sick.
The study also doesn’t take into account the potential price-cutting effect of competition in new state insurance markets that will go live Oct. 1, administration officials said.
At a White House briefing Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said some of what passes for health insurance today is so skimpy it can’t be compared to the comprehensive coverage available under the law. “Some of these folks have very high catastrophic plans that don’t pay for anything unless you get hit by a bus,” she said. “They’re really mortgage protection, not health insurance.”
Sebelius said the picture on premiums won’t start coming into focus until insurers submit their bids. Those results may not be publicly known until late summer.
By David Morgan WASHINGTON, March 19 (Reuters) – Two Republican state senators from Arkansas may soon accomplish what seasoned Washington politicians couldn’t: make the main provisions of President Barack Obama‘s healthcare overhaul palatable to hard-core conservatives. Jonathan Dismang and David Sanders, with two colleagues from the state House, believe they have come up with an alternative to the Medicaid expansion, as laid out in the law. Their idea is to use privatization to avoid the proliferation of government bureaucracy that conservatives vehemently oppose. Democratic Governor Mike Beebe readily agreed to the idea. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Obama‘s top healthcare adviser, gave her verbal commitment. Details are still being worked out, and each chamber of the Arkansas legislature needs to approve the changes by a 75 percent margin before the legislative session ends next month. But Arkansas, a poor state with fewer than 3 million people, finds itself at the center of a potential big shift in healthcare politics. If the proposal succeeded, it could help lower barriers to the expansion of the Medicaid health program for the poor in Republican states. It could also set a precedent for conservatives to accept another big part of the Affordable Care Act: new state-based insurance marketplaces, or exchanges. In Arkansas those would become the vehicle for providing private coverage to Medicaid recipients and others. The main aim of the 2010 law was to expand healthcare coverage to millions of uninsured Americans. That included many of the country’s poorest, who lack coverage because current state-run Medicaid programs often benefit only limited groups, such as pregnant women and the severely disabled. Obama‘s expansion would add an estimated 12 million adults by covering everyone who earns up to $32,500. But some of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act‘s momentum has been blunted by broad Republican opposition to government-run health care. Dismang and Sanders say their proposal overcomes these obstacles by putting a Republican imprint on extending health coverage, by involving the private sector. …read more Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post
