Thursday, September 17, 2009

Is THIS ObamaCare?

The Baucus bill crawls out from under its rock.

...Employers will be required to offer "qualified coverage" to their workers (or pay another "free rider" penalty) and workers will be required to accept it, paying for it in lower wages. The vast majority of households already confront the same tradeoff today, except Congress will now declare that there's only one right answer.

(Fuggedabout looking for insurance that fits your needs and no more than that.)

And as we mentioned yesterday, this will cost AFSCME and WEA members dearly:

Take a family of four making $42,000 in 2016. While government would subsidize 80% of their premium and pay $1,500 to offset cost-sharing, they'd still pay $6,000 a year or 14.3% of their total income. A family making $54,000 could still pay 18.1% of their income, while an individual earning $26,500 would be on the hook for 15.5%, and one earning $32,400 for 17.3%. So lower-income workers would still be forced to devote huge portions of their salaries to expensive policies that they may not want or be able to afford.

The only problem with my post was that I under-estimated the premium cost.

And there is the matter of "cost estimates" which are .......umnnnhhhh......prayers, rather than facts:

Like the House bill, Mr. Baucus uses 10 years of taxes to fund about seven years of spending. Some $215 billion is scrounged up by imposing a 35% excise tax on insurance companies for plans valued at more than $21,000 for families and $8,000 for individuals. This levy would merely be added to the insurers' "administrative load" and passed down to all consumers in higher prices. Ditto for the $59 billion that Mr. Baucus would raise by taxing the likes of clinical laboratories and drug and device makers.

Mr. Baucus also wants to cut $409 billion from Medicare, according to CBO, though the only money that is certain to see the budget ax is $123 billion from the Medicare Advantage program.

By the way--remember when Obama slashed Hillary for proposing healthcare which required everybody to join up?

Ach, I know. Bringing it up is simply racist.

One more thing: how much of this bill did Grassley approve?

No comments: