Subsidies Under the Baucus Plan & Subsidy Calculator Link
From the hearings this past Tuesday . . .During the hearing held on Tuesday Sen. Rockefeller received confirmation from the CBO that it is estimated that under the Baucus plan the subsidies earmarked to the lower income brackets purchasing insurance from the Exchange of private companies and who are not covered by an employee plan will cost in the neighborhood of $463 billion over the next 10 years, not taking into account Medicaid for those at or below the 133% of poverty level, nor SCHIPS. (See: CSPAN @ 15m45s)
And here is the latest update on the financing costs under the Baucus Plan:
CBO estimates the cost of the coverage components of the plan to be $774 billion over ten years. These costs are financed through a combination of savings from Medicare and Medicaid and new taxes and fees. The primary sources of Medicare and Medicaid savings include incorporating productivity improvements into Medicare market basket updates, reducing payments to Medicare Advantage plans, creating the Medicare Commission charged with finding savings in the program, changing the Medicaid drug rebate provisions, and cutting Medicaid and Medicare DSH payments. (See descriptions of cost savings provisions in Cost containment.) The largest source of new revenue will come from an excise tax on high cost insurance--insurance plans that exceed $8,000 for single coverage and $21,000 for family coverage--which CBO estimates will raise $215 billion over ten years. The threshold values for high cost plans are indexed to the CPI-U, which typically increases at a lower rate than health insurance premiums, so it is expected that this tax will raise more money over time. CBO estimates the proposal will reduce the deficit by $49 billion over ten years.
The modified Chairman's Mark of the America's Healthy Future Act of 2009, released on September 22, 2009, will use $28 billion of the existing $49 billion surplus to offset the costs of the changes.
www.finance.senate.gov/sitepages/baucus.htm
Now here's how the Baucus Plan breaks down for a family of four.
Note: Subsidies are only available for people purchasing coverage on their own in the Exchange (not through an employer). All individuals and families with incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for Medicaid. Others with higher incomes may also be eligible, depending on rules that vary by state.
In a Medium Cost Area:
At 133% of Poverty or $29,327
A family of 4 with the head of household 35 years old.
Medicaid would cover this family.
Then . . . Up to 200% of Poverty level
In a Medium Cost Area
At 200% of Poverty or $44,100
A family of 4 with the head of household @ 35 years old.
Actual annual plan premium: $8,636
(age factor = 0.92 )
Cap on premium as % of income: 7.0%
Person/family premium payment: $3,087
% of total premium paid by person/family: 36%
Person/family payment as % of income: 7.0%
Government subsidy: $5,549
Could the person/family pay less for a less comprehenisve plan? No
Next ... 300% of poverty.
In a Medium Cost Area
At 300% of Poverty or $66,150
A family of 4 with the head of household @ 35 years old.
Actual annual plan premium: $8,636
(age factor = 0.92 )
Cap on premium as % of income: 12.0%
Person/family premium payment: $7,938
% of total premium paid by person/family: 92%
Person/family payment as % of income: 12.0%
Government subsidy: $698
Could the person/family pay less for a less comprehenisve plan? Yes
Premium for the lower cost plan: $7,834
Premium as % of family income: 11.8%
Next ... 400% of Poverty
In a Medium Cost Area
At 400% of Poverty or $88,200
A family of 4 with the head of household @ 35 years old.
Actual annual plan premium: $8,636
(age factor = 0.92 )
Cap on premium as % of income: 12.0%
Person/family premium payment: $8,938
% of total premium paid by person/family: 100%
Person/family payment as % of income: 12.0%
Government subsidy: $0
Could the person/family pay less for a less comprehensive plan? Yes
Premium for the lower cost plan: $7,834
Premium as % of family income: 8.9%
NOW HERE'S THE KICKER: Those subsidies paid to offset the overall cost to you the consumer are going to be in part PAID FOR AND TAKEN FROM TAXING HIGHER INSURANCE PLANS and then paid back to the insurance industry through the subsides. So not only are you going to be putting your money into the pockets of the industry but the subsidies also go back into the pockets of the industries.
I'm NOT surprised . . . Are you?
And if you have the time, look what else Baucus' mark-up also holds:
Baucus health bill would let private group write rules | LA Times September 28, 2009
The National Assn. of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)currently writes model laws and regulations that individual states are free to accept or discard. Under the bill by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), it would craft a model rule governing "health insurance rating, issuance and marketing requirements" that would become "the new federal minimum standard without any further congressional action." States would be permitted to deviate from the standards only by appealing to the Department of Health and Human Services.
In effect, the bill would allow the group to write many of the new rules on issuing and marketing insurance to millions of uninsured Americans who would be required to purchase policies.
Same as ever... Letting the weasels into the hen house to check over the eggs.
Now ... If you wish to run your personal data into the calculator you can find it here:
Health Reform Subsidy Calculator ... kff.org
Have fun . . .
~OGD~
















Also . . .
Just to let everybody know.
Besides the Baucus plan, that calculator also give the breakdown on other plans, such as the different House Committee bills and the Senate HELP Committee plan, in addition to having the ability to calculate single individuals costs also.
~OGD~
October 1, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
And also keep in mind . . .
~OGD~
October 1, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the work you're putting into this issue. Despite our differences, I laud you for this attention to detail.
October 1, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for keeping track which you have for a long time OGD.
I wish I had the power to put this on MSM every damn day.
Great post as always!!!
October 1, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy shit.
Thanks OGD. Personally it is worse then I expected. If you are self-employed Or your employer pays you a living wage but no insurance, you are hosed. Once again put the burden on the middle class. Oh they increase the tax deduction 2.5%. Swell. But then look at these premium estimates?
Most people with minimal insurance now are paying the most they can, these estimates will in many cases double or triple the premiums- that's not really affordable. This is like a huge tax hike I have to give to companies I hate. I am angry. This will be a boondoggle for the industry, when it needs to be a bloodletting.
Single payer and simply tax me.
Or let me buy into medicare, I don't want a stupid half-assed public option.
But maybe I am mistaken. Any minute now the esteemed banjo playing Dr. Pangloss is going to come by and tell us all how much better this is then he feared and how we must support this and it ok to penalize middle income people, because we must save the system.
October 1, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, ya think?
October 1, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. Right on time.
October 2, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
OGD - I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. The subsidies are probably a bit ungenerous, but not totally inadequate. Better subsidies would require a larger revenue source - i.e., higher taxes - because the money has to come from somewhere. As to where the money goes, if you're going to subsidize insurance premiums, it's going to go to insurers - would anyone expect something different? However, in going there, it will pay for some specified minimum benefits (that too, could be beefed up, but that's a different topic).
I do share your concern about the role of NAIC, but if they are to be excluded, the necessary expertise will have to come from somewhere, and that will be challenging. It may be that we must rely on some of those state insurance commissioners (Secretary Sebelius was once one), but that considerable oversight will be needed to avoid abuses.
In any case, the Baucus draft is not the final legislation that will emerge from Congress, and so there is time to push for needed revisions.
October 1, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The individual mandate is probably the most absurd aspect of the proposal considering it's likely unconstitutional and would almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court at some point.
Civilianism makes some good points.
http://www.civilianism.com/gate/2009/09/the-health-care-purchase-requirement-is-unconstitutional/
October 2, 2009 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhhhh ... GB . . .
Did you happen to notice any mention in my original post dealing with the issue of mandates?
Here, I'll answer it for you. NO!
Now if this issue of mandates is something you wish to expound on, either... 1.) Write yourself a nice blog of your own on that specific issue, or... 2.) Go over to the following blog post of mine from August 16 where you can leave your link in a thread dealing with that subject.
And if you don't like the mandate idea, scroll down in that thread and you'll find my answer to alleviating your problem.
Now please try an stay within the specific subject matter of the thread, beginning with the specific subject matter of my original blog post.
That being, the issue of S-U-B-S-I-D-I-E-S in the BAUCUS mark-up.
Thanks in advance if in the future you can adhere to this request.
BTW -- There is an answer to your pressing question in that other thread here.
~OGD~
October 2, 2009 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink