Another day, another court ruling upholding the Constitutionality of the ACA. I can’t wait for the media to cover this with as much breathless enthusiasm as the other rulings!

Missed this earlier. This isn’t really my point. Check these stats:

“The average age of people diagnosed with lung cancer is 70 years old. 3% of all cases are found in people under the age of 45.”

That’s from:

Most people who get lung cancer, even among smokers, are pretty old.

QUOTE=jeffd;2742490]Meanwhile, in Massachusetts… Romneycare is basically working so far![/QUOTE]

Yesterday, Matt Yglesias had a good post regarding health care policy. The whole thing is worth reading, but there is one part in particular that I wanted to focus on:

He is being a bit flippant with his interpretation of the conservative position on health care policy, but it got me thinking: what is the actual state of the art of conservative thinking on health care reform? I’m less interested in what politicians have to say and more interested in what the conservative policy wonk world (such as it still exists) thinks. I know groups like Cato and the like are all for simply deregulating the whole shebang and seeing what happens, are there any other conservative approaches to the problems of coverage & cost?

Another Oops in Health Care Bill Scoring. This bill is a cluster and JTC/CBO are in deep water as no one understands their scoring methodology. In any case, health insurance is going to go up or the cost of the bill is a lot more than advertised. No surprises as repealing the CLASS portion of the bill is already up high on the priority list.


Healthcare law could leave families with high insurance costs

A major provision of the healthcare reform law designed to prevent businesses from dropping coverage for their workers could inadvertently leave families without access to subsidized health insurance.

The problem is a huge headache for the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, because it could leave families unable to buy affordable health insurance when the healthcare law requires that everyone be insured starting in 2014.

Some of the administration’s closest allies on healthcare reform warn this situation could dramatically undercut support for the law, which already is unpopular with many voters and contributed to Democrats losing the House in the 2010 midterm elections.

“It’s going to be a massive problem if it comes out that families have to buy really expensive employer-based coverage,” said Jocelyn Guyer, deputy executive director at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.
“If they don’t fix this — and by ‘they’ I mean either the administration or Congress — we’re going to have middle-class families extremely unhappy with [healthcare] reform in 2014, because they’ll basically be facing financial penalties for not buying coverage when they don’t have access to any affordable options.”

At issue is a so-called “firewall” in the law that denies subsidies to workers whose employers offer quality, affordable coverage.

The firewall applies to plans with premiums that cost less than 9.5 percent of a worker’s income. If a worker has to dole out more than that amount to buy coverage, the employer coverage is considered unaffordable and the worker is eligible for subsidies to buy coverage on the new exchanges.

Initially, advocates thought the threshold also applied to family coverage. If premium costs paid to cover a worker’s family cost 20 percent of a worker’s income, for example, the worker and his or her family should be eligible for subsidies.

But in calculating the bill’s cost last year, Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) took the law to mean that employers and their families aren’t eligible for subsidies as long as the individual plan is affordable — regardless of the price of the family plan.

This means the costs to an employee for covering his or her family could be too high to afford for many working families.

“If you’ve got employer-based coverage that’s affordable for the employee only,” Guyer said, “the family is expected to take the employer coverage even if it“s totally unaffordable and no one in the family is eligible for the exchange subsidies.”

The glitch is causing heartburn for advocates who worry that it could leave thousands of children and spouses uninsured and subject to penalties for not having insurance.

“The JCT read of the language is disturbing and we hope the administration doesn’t read the language that way,” said Bruce Lesley, president of the children’s advocacy group First Focus. “It would put dependent coverage, children and spouses at grave risk.”

The Obama administration is expected to clarify shortly — through Treasury Department regulations — who’s eligible for subsidies.

An administration official told The Hill, “These matters will be considered in future regulations.”

Healthcare reform proponents say they’ve quietly been talking to the administration for months about the issue.

“We’ve talked to them — a lot — about this,” said Judith Solomon, vice president for health policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “We’ve made our views known.”

While advocates say changing the policy is a no-brainer, the costs could be a hurdle.

One new study <http://epionline.org/studies/110715_EPI_AnOfferYouCantRefuse_Finalpdf> , by the Employment Policies Institute, estimates that changing the policy could cost taxpayers $50 billion per year. But if the administration leaves the policy as is, “millions of families will be stuck in a no-man’s-land without affordable coverage through their employer or the exchange.”

“Whichever interpretation holds,” the study concludes, “the consequences are significant.”

Others dispute those figures. They argue that employers will offer affordable coverage for whole families and point out that many children who aren’t covered by employer family plans are eligible for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

“It’s really not clear to me how much of an impact it would be [to change the policy],” Solomon said. The $50 billion-per-year figure “seems very high to me.”

So you mean there was stuff in the bill that nobody knew about…so Nancy Pelosi was right…we would find out about it later.

Again, this is something that has come up as an unintended consequence, not the boogeyman stealth measure that the morons seems to fear. They’ll fix it, and we can move on to the next thing. Remember when the Tardumvirate got all excited about the glitch that allowed middle-class retirees to qualify for Medicaid? Remember when we had this same discussion and cooler heads said that shit like this happens, and it will get fixed? Guess what happened:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hBwrqbpTQ7U6kKBvTEZ6Qa4wwo1g?docId=a4af5834bdb0489094267c5f4fe71856

Oh hey, they’re fixing it, with absolutely no fanfare or acknowledgment. Imagine that. Speaking of the tardumivirate, where’s Martin been lately? I would have expected him to put in his dentures and crow about this by now.

H.

But all these fixes cost money when we were promised this was budget neutral and could reduce health care costs. Every report that has come out has found that a) the bill costs more than was projected and b) is not working as well as CBO projected.

To recap we’ve found that several provisions were gimmicks or need to be fixed at additional expense. We’ve found that major promises of the bill are a joke (Medicare productivity cuts). We’ve found that the idea that ACO’s would save money is being tested as the model ACO’s are saying they don’t want to play by the bill’s regulations.

Is there any part of the bill that is working better than expected?

Well no, the fixes don’t necessarily cost money. The fix I linked saves money because it removes a certain group from Medicaid roles. It depends on which way the fix cuts, more people on government programs or less.

As to it costing more than projected, could you post some links? Since very little has actually kicked in I don’t think real costs would be relevant yet. The last I saw it was a touch north of $1Tn. Likewise with the ACOs, I was under the impression that program was only started a month ago.

H.

This is pretty cool. It’s a template just released by the Obama administration that all health insurance plans will have to use to describe their plan. Ezra Klein likens it to a nutritional label for health insurance, and he’s right. The idea is to make a lot of bottom-line information about costs transparent to the consumer.

It’s ability to piss you off? :P

It will probably be tweaked over time too. This is a good feature. The paperwork will still be silly on the medical professionals side, but as a consumer of insurance, I would like a LOT more clarity about how things are covered. I can go to the website of my insurance company and find things, but they are often too general to be of use to me. So I end up having to contact the company (or HR) and get the info I want.

It’s brilliant, much like when they legislated that credit cards had to spell out on their statement what paying the minimums means in terms of interest you’ll accrue and how long you’ll owe. Any time we can bring pertinent information to the surface it is a win.

The part that allows my Bipolar son to stay on my insurance until he’s 26 is working pretty darn well.

Specifically, when he graduated high school, he was in no way, shape or form ready to get and hold a job that would provide benefits sufficient to cover his necessary medical care. He is progressing at a rate that I have high hopes that by the time he turns 26, however, he will be self-sufficient enough that will be different.

My life, and the life of my family, is significantly better because of this legislation.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/24/national/a060732D03.DTL

Nearly one of every 10 midsized or big employers expects to stop offering health coverage to workers once federal insurance exchanges start in 2014, according to a new survey from a large benefits consultant.

Towers Watson also found in a survey completed last month that an additional 20 percent of the companies are unsure about what they will do.

Another big benefits consultant, Mercer, found in a June survey of large and smaller employers that 8 percent are either “likely” or “very likely” to end health benefits once the exchanges start.

Gee and I always got told this would never happen, that if I liked my current insurance I would be able to keep it.

You still can, your job just won’t help pay for it anymore.

It wont be the same coverage from the same company. So no it wont be my insurance that I like and want to keep.

It is possible that you can keep the same coverage from the same company, though you’ll have to take that up with the Insurance company, not your employer, and they’ll probably expect you to pay the full freight with no group discount.

If you’re getting health insurance through work, what guarantee do you ever have that they won’t change health care providers or change plans with the same provider?

I’ve had my employer change my insurance plan numerous times. I think with a government plan you have a better chance of finding a provider you like and actually getting to stay with that provider.