Senate Finance Commitee Health Care Bill Will Actually Raise Insurance Premiums

[newnameman]

Key Findings

Health reform could have a significant impact on the cost of private health insurance coverage.

There are four provisions included in the Senate Finance Committee proposal that could increase private health insurance premiums above the levels projected under current law:

• Insurance market reforms coupled with a weak coverage requirement,
• A new tax on high-cost health care plans,
• Cost-shifting as a result of cuts to Medicare, and
• New taxes on several health care sectors.

The overall impact of these provisions will be to increase the cost of private insurance coverage for individuals, families, and businesses above what these costs would be in the absence of reform.

On average, the cost of private health insurance coverage will increase:

• 26 percent between 2009 and 2013 under the current system and by 40 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.
  
• 50 percent between 2009 and 2016 under the current system and by 73 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.
  
• 79 percent between 2009 and 2019 under the current system and by 111 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_pwc2.html


I guess this is what happens when you make your bill "deficit-neutral" by jacking up taxes on health care.

 

[Vette73]

"This document has been prepared pursuant to an engagement between PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and its Client."

And that would be...

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
"This document has been prepared pursuant to an engagement between PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and its Client."

And that would be...

I don't know who their client is, but it certainly stands to reason that if you add new mandates on insurance coverage (no pre-existing conditions etc), and at the same time do some cost shifting and add taxes, that overall premiums are going to go up.

Is there anyone who doubts that no matter what happens, health care premiums will go way up? (either through direct premiums or through taxation).

 

[shadow9d9]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...care_overhaul_insurers

"
Insurers mount attack against health reform
AP

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. enters an elevator on AP ? Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. enters an elevator on Capitol Hill in Washington, ?
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer ? 40 mins ago

WASHINGTON ? After working for months behind the scenes to help shape health care reform, the insurance industry is now sharply attacking the emerging plan with a report that maintains Senate legislation would increase the cost of a typical policy by hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars a year.

A spokesman for Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., whose 10-year, $829 billion overhaul plan faces a final Finance Committee vote Tuesday, was quick to react Sunday, questioning the credibility of the industry's late-in-coming cost estimate.

"It's a health insurance company hatchet job, plain and simple," said the spokesman, Scott Mulhauser.""

You mean health insurers want to screw people even more? Shocker!!!!

We need government health insurance. These health insurances need to go under.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

This report from PWC could indeed be tainted by a HI "client." I'll wait for an official CBO estimate before I pass judgment. Better yet, I'll wait until I read the bill myself -- if that's even possible before the final vote.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
"This document has been prepared pursuant to an engagement between PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and its Client."

And that would be...

My guess would be Freedom works

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
"This document has been prepared pursuant to an engagement between PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and its Client."

And that would be...

I don't know who their client is, but it certainly stands to reason that if you add new mandates on insurance coverage (no pre-existing conditions etc), and at the same time do some cost shifting and add taxes, that overall premiums are going to go up.

Is there anyone who doubts that no matter what happens, health care premiums will go way up? (either through direct premiums or through taxation).

It is easier to attack the messenger.

What they are going to pass looks an awful like RomneyCare. RomneyCare saw premiums rise and servie quality drop.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
"This document has been prepared pursuant to an engagement between PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and its Client."

And that would be...

I don't know who their client is, but it certainly stands to reason that if you add new mandates on insurance coverage (no pre-existing conditions etc), and at the same time do some cost shifting and add taxes, that overall premiums are going to go up.

Is there anyone who doubts that no matter what happens, health care premiums will go way up? (either through direct premiums or through taxation).

It is easier to attack the messenger.

What they are going to pass looks an awful like RomneyCare. RomneyCare saw premiums rise and servie quality drop.

That's unpossible! Health care by the government can only have good results! YOU SHILL!

It's painfully obvious that this is a backdoor approach to government controlled health care. It was from the instant it was proposed. All the government has to do is make the playing field work in their favor and they eventually win. The old railway barons did this, and it worked. It's pretty clever.

 

[sportage]

The Whitehouse has already responded to this.
The group this so called "study" comes from is tainted and slanted by opponents to reform.
This is nothing more than the lobbyist for insurance industries last ditch attempt to derail reform.
Just ignore this thread.
Ignore this study.
Both have no creditability what so ever.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: sportage
The Whitehouse has already responded to this.
The group this so called "study" comes from is tainted and slanted by opponents to reform.
This is nothing more than the lobbyist for insurance industries last ditch attempt to derail reform.
Just ignore this thread.
Ignore this study.
Both have no creditability what so ever.

Just listen to what WE say, eh?
It may be tainted and slanted by opponents to reform, but it doesn't excuse all the tainted and slanted statements for it.

Neither side has much credibility, except in their own eyes.

Now explain one thing. What prevents the government from stacking the deck so it wins in the end and has total or near complete control of health care? Please don't slant and taint.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Ahh! The insurance lobby says reform will raise premiums! In laymans terms, "If you try and fuck us, we will fuck you harder"

What other response were you expecting from the legalized mafia. Haven't you heard if you don't buy your insurance protection from them, very very bad things will happen to you

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Ahh! The insurance lobby says reform will raise premiums! In laymans terms, "If you try and fuck us, we will fuck you harder"

What other response were you expecting from the legalized mafia. Haven't you heard if you don't buy your insurance protection from them, very very bad things will happen to you

So what prevents the government from using it's regulatory power and ability to subsidize it's pet programs to kill off opposition making them the only game in town?

 

[charrison]

THis should surprise no one. You add in mandates(more coverage), prices will go up.

 

[LTC8K6]

Why can't the insurers have their say the same way the White House does?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sportage
The Whitehouse has already responded to this.
The group this so called "study" comes from is tainted and slanted by opponents to reform.
This is nothing more than the lobbyist for insurance industries last ditch attempt to derail reform.
Just ignore this thread.
Ignore this study.
Both have no creditability what so ever.

Just listen to what WE say, eh?
It may be tainted and slanted by opponents to reform, but it doesn't excuse all the tainted and slanted statements for it.

Neither side has much credibility, except in their own eyes.

Now explain one thing. What prevents the government from stacking the deck so it wins in the end and has total or near complete control of health care? Please don't slant and taint.

Nothing. That is Obama and dems ultimate goal. Most of the top dems including Dear Leader have said that is their goal.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: newnameman
[Topic Title: Senate Finance Commitee Health Care Bill Will Actually Raise Insurance Premiums
Topic Summary: According to analysis of the bill by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

analysis of the bill by PricewaterhouseCoopers

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
That's unpossible! Health care by the government can only have good results! YOU SHILL!

It's painfully obvious that this is a backdoor approach to government controlled health care. It was from the instant it was proposed. All the government has to do is make the playing field work in their favor and they eventually win. The old railway barons did this, and it worked. It's pretty clever.

Since Romneycare (and I gree that's pretty much what Senate Bill is replicating) is neither government run nor government controlled, I'm not sure what your point is here.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Now explain one thing. What prevents the government from stacking the deck so it wins in the end and has total or near complete control of health care? Please don't slant and taint.

I don't get it. Where is the evidence that "government" wants that. And to the extent that government's role in health care policy might somehow be increased, where is the evidence that would be a bad thing. ? Why is it that other countries can do better but we can't.

I cannot for the life of me understand why Kaiser Permanente should be able to negotiate pharmaceutical prices while Medicare is prohibited from doing so. Please explain to me how the nation at large benefits from having 43+ million seniors charged more than Kaiser subscribers.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
"This document has been prepared pursuant to an engagement between PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and its Client."

And that would be...

Why does it matter? PWC is not some fly by night lab or think-tank that will side with who pays them.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

How much of our nation's GDP will health care costs need to consume (20%? 25%?) and how many more millions of Americans need to end up uninsured, under-insured, and/or filing for medical bankruptcy in spite of that percentage of GDP before people will be willing to realize that we need to adopt the British system?

The American people really have become morons. We have numerous examples of far superior and less expensive systems in place and actually functioning in other countries yet we continue to beg to have a system that makes insurance company and hospital executives multimillionaires. Of course, these are the same people who are happily allowing their jobs to be shipped to other countries while immigrants and visa-holders flood in to displace Americans from jobs locally while depressing wages. We truly have become a nation of morons.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

We need government health insurance. These health insurances need to go under.

our government already spends more per person on medical care than either the UK or german goverment. and you're reallying blaming the insurance companies? wtf is our government buying!?!

 

[LTC8K6]

I still don't understand why the insurance companies can't represent themselves and their point of view in the media like the White House does. Like AARP does. Like the UAW does. Like the RNC does. Etc.

Why is it suddenly bad to hire PR firms and commission studies? This is the way politics has been forever.

This is the way the system of passing laws has been forever.

The insurance company commissioned study is no different than what the White House puts out.

Why would it be?

There is no inherent reason to believe either one.

Use common sense and judge for yourself whether Obama can do what he wants without increasing costs.

Personally, I don't see how it's possible without a big hike in costs to me.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
"This document has been prepared pursuant to an engagement between PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and its Client."

And that would be...

Why does it matter? PWC is not some fly by night lab or think-tank that will side with who pays them.

ROFL:laugh:

let me fix that for you

PWC the best auditors money can buy, PWC WILL side with who ever pays them.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
This report from PWC could indeed be tainted by a HI "client." I'll wait for an official CBO estimate before I pass judgment. Better yet, I'll wait until I read the bill myself -- if that's even possible before the final vote.

If reports by PWC had any inkling of proof of tainting by its clients they would go the way of Arthur Andersen. However, it does not mean the client did not know the obvious outcome and/or that if the outcome was not in client's favor they would have signed the public release of the report.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: CPA
Why does it matter? PWC is not some fly by night lab or think-tank that will side with who pays them.

But they do have a history of using assumptions that favor their clients. See Ezra Klein's column today for details.