Back to Opinion

COMMENT: Health care 'overhaul'? The devil's in the details

Recommend Article
Total Recommendations (2)

by Andrew Coates

As health insurance reform inches towards the president's desk, the airwaves and editorial pages fill with spin. "Health-care overhaul," the headlines say. "Still a government takeover of health care," the Republicans in Congress say. "The culmination of a struggle begun by Theodore Roosevelt," Vice President Biden says.

Against so much political posturing, Representative Eric Massa has proven himself unique in Congress: someone who sticks to the facts. Last month when he courageously voted against the House bill, he said it would strengthen, not weaken, the hand of the private insurers. The insurance industry is the problem, not the solution, he explained. As the legislation nears final reconciliation, Massa's analysis remains solid.

The crux of the legislation in Congress is compulsory private insurance. Under the "individual mandate," a long-held wish of the insurance companies, the government will coerce people to become and remain their paying customers.

If you're uninsured and you don't buy health insurance, the Senate bill allows a fine of up to 2 percent of your income, assessed by the IRS. (It's 2.5 percent in the House bill.) Pay the fine and you're free to remain uninsured.

If you simply can't afford a policy, according to the Senate bill, you can avoid paying the fine by applying for a "hardship waiver." Get the waiver and you're free to remain uninsured.

Since the legislation does nothing to make insurance affordable, tax money will subsidize private insurance premiums for those who earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. But those earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level would still have to pay up to 9.8 percent of their income for insurance (under the Senate bill). This taxpayer gift to insurance companies will amount to as much as $476 billion - half a trillion dollars - over a decade.

The Senate formula also pushes the onus of health costs onto individual families by imposing a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans, an incentive to reduce coverage. This will especially impact residents of states with high insurance costs, like our own state; union members with comprehensive benefits; companies that employ women (whose group insurance costs are higher), and plans that cover older employees (whose insurance costs are higher).

The Senate bill also encourages skimpy coverage by allowing the most basic plans to cover only 60 percent of actual health costs on top of growing of out-of-pocket expenses. Prescription drug costs have gone up 9 percent this year. Meanwhile, the insurance industry itself has estimated premium hikes of 79 to 111 percent over the coming decade.

In addition to millions of new customers for insurance companies, the legislation seeks an enormous expansion of Medicaid, with new enrollment of millions of people by expanding eligibility to those who earn up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level. But we know from bitter experience that having Medicaid is no guarantee of access to care, nor will it reduce disparities in care.

If private insurance will remain a defective product and Medicaid will remain a poor program for poor people and the legislation will not reign in costs - where is the reform?

But perhaps most startling is that the major features of the legislation would not begin until 2013, after the next presidential election, and then would take effect gradually over six years more. Such a proposal hardly seems worthy of the name "overhaul" when we remember that Medicare passed in 1964 and was up and running in 1965.

Last month when he voted against the House bill, Congressman Massa explained that he had studied the entire bill and that he understood the health care needs of his district. As the Congressional process lumbers forth, with the pending legislation ever more insurance-industry-friendly, Eric Massa has emerged as a portrait of leadership, courage, and honesty.

It's time to scrap this pro-insurance-company legislation and start over. A good starting point would be the improvement and expansion of Medicare to cover every person in the United States.

Andrew Coates practices medicine in Albany, where he is assistant professor of medicine and psychiatry at AlbanyMedicalCollege. He is a member of the board of directors of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Comments for "COMMENT: Health care 'overhaul'? The devil's in the details" (4)

City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.

User Photo

david m burke said on Dec. 29, 2009 at 4:07pm

I agree with this. Expand Medicare 100 % of the population, and cap malpractice award as well. It is the only sensible plan.

DB

User Photo

dean said on Dec. 29, 2009 at 10:44pm

screw the government and there crap. its time to revolt and get rid of all the assholes and start fresh.

User Photo

jACKSON said on Dec. 30, 2009 at 11:18am

Ive been doing alot of reading about these high deductible health plan lately as Im about to obtain one through my job. I admit, at first it seems like alot to pay for, but there is a chance for some big savings as well. These plans are usually accomodated by a HSA, HRA, or FSA, into which you put a certain amout pretax, and said money can be used to pay for medical expenses, or go towards your deductible. It saves the company money, which in the long run, lets you keep your job, which is nice in this economy. And even though you have to pay everything up to your agreed deductible amount, everything after is covered, with perameters of your plan. Another bonus is that, if you use the Doctor infrequently, the money in HSA, is your money,and it accumulates. If you leave the job, that money is still yours. There are pros and cons to every situation. I have posted a couple links I found to be very useful. I hope they help in your search for info.

- highdeductiblehealthplan.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/highdeductiblehealth

User Photo

doubleaseven said on Jan. 03, 2010 at 7:40am

Thank you Andy for covering very cogently all the important money points regarding the shallow misrepresentations in the current HCR bills. I have been firing off missives in the same spirit at the inhabitants of both ends of Pennsylvania Ave, to no effect. I hope somehow your article makes it to the President's night time reading folder.

I am reproducing contents of a note I wrote recently:
The disingenuous or false statements made by Team Obama and collaborating members of Congress, to transform the critique of the Bill into praise and gratitude by the public, are sickening and demoralizing. Credibility of the talking points can not be raised by constant repetition by increasing number of protagonists. Unfortunately many TV hosts who were challenging the falsehoods head on are doing so less and less, perhaps because they are getting tired and increasingly resigned to inevitability of a flawed bill. However in the this technique can not work because it will be very hard to create a collusion involving millions of progressives and independents. It is too bad that many sellers want to be trusted because of their eons of experience in the Washington scene, which has not even helped them develop enough intellectual honesty to recognize this basic concept. Some of the most egregious half truths going unchallenged are:

1) Subsidies and exchanges etc start in 8014, thus all this sobbing about 45k dying is at best crocodile tears for political posturing. Should another 200,000 or more deaths not be issue #1 to be treated as a National Emergency. Do we not want to put a stop to these needless deaths immediately?

2) Insure 31M (not 47M) by 2019, not exactly a crash program, is it? Why do they not point out that tax payer money will be squandered on high bone crushing premiums (and more than proportionately higher subsidies) which are projected to grow 111% by Insurance Industry’s own estimates.

3) No clear description of any alternatives to a Public Insurance Option, which provide "the same" cost lowering, competition and honest adherence to the new regulations and the spirit of the bill. These are the objectives laid down the President, who has until recently championed the Public Option as the wisest and most effective path to attainment of the objectives.

4) Ban the insurance denial based on pre-existing conditions. But the differential of older people with pre-existing conditions compared to regular premiums can be upto 300% in the Senate Bill. The same number is 120% in Vermont as described by Gov Howard Dean. People higher than 400% of FPL not eligible for subsidies will not find it affordable. For those eligible, tax payer will be hit for obscenely high amounts.

Leave A Comment

(This will not be published)

(Optional)

Respond on Your Blog

If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.