When you get a job that offers health benefits it is kind of a no-brainer that you are going to accept those benefits. The only sane reason to turn them down is if your life-partner has a job with better benefits. So, you fill out some forms for your human resources person, you select a primary care physician, you get a medical care card and a dental care card, and you’re done. Your company starts withholding money from your paycheck which you can track if you look at your pay-stub (not always something people bother with in this era of direct deposits). You probably don’t think about the fact that your company is matching some of the cost of your health care coverage. You don’t think about the fact that you’d be getting that money in salary or wages if you lived in a country that had some form of single-payer government provided (or subsidized) health care.
When your company’s health care costs double, you see some combination of reduced benefits and increased withholding. Maybe your co-pays go up. What you don’t notice is that your pay raises disappear or stagnate. Or, rather, you do notice that, but you don’t put two-and-two together and realize that your pay raise disappeared to help pay for the rising cost of providing your employer-based health care.
Your employer is more clear-eyed. They know how much you cost them in compensation. They look at the total cost, and they don’t care how much is direct pay and how much is part of your benefits package. When the cost of insuring you doubles, they can make it up in various ways. They can reduce the match on your 401(k). They can give you a 2% raise instead of a 4% raise. They can renegotiate a less generous health care plan for all their employees. They can withhold more from your paycheck.
All of this creates a situation where most Americans are constantly getting blasted by the rising cost of health insurance without understanding where that money is going. Maybe they think their company simply had a bad year and made few profits.
If you poll the people that have employer-based health care, they seem fairly happy with the deal they are getting. But they’re getting screwed. But they are not getting screwed half as hard as the people who have to buy individual coverage. They aren’t getting screwed half as hard as the people who have to go without health insurance because it is unaffordable for them.
What Baucus and his cohorts want to do is to force people to buy health insurance that they have already decided is not affordable. He wants them all to buy that insurance from the corporations that charge too much and deny too much care. That is not going to be popular. People are going to hate his plan. His plan is going to pauperize people who are barely getting by in this country.
It’s wrong. We all know that single-payer works, and works well. But if we aren’t going to go that route, we have to at least provide an option for people to buy government insurance at an affordable price. If we don’t do that, we are going to make enemies of the very people we most want to help.
i still believe you’re under the false impression that Baucus gives a shit about these people. i simply don’t believe that.
Ironically, Sen. Snowe understands:
Heh.. someone should tell the Republicans this is Baucus’s secret plan to get everyone hating private insurance and eventually create a single-payer system.
Yeah.. this plan is going to hurt us if it passes as is.
It’s not just the affordability.
It’s easier to force Americans to buy health insurance than it is to force insurance companies to actually pay a significant portion of someone’s health care bill. Plug one hold in the dike (recission, or pre-existing conditions, or exorbitant co-pays) and they’ll find three more. They’re legally obligated to their shareholders to make as much money as possible, and that means endless creative new ways to not pay claims. Guaranteed.
Forcing people to pay for coverage they can’t afford is disastrous enough. Forcing people to pay for unaffordable, useless coverage — which is where we’re headed — is political Armageddeon.
They have this way of doing line item vetoes on medical bills.
I was helping a friend with her insurance claims after she had been released from the hospital following a stroke. The insurance company paid for almost everything, but they found these weird items not to pay for. Like they said the ambulance service from the hospital to the rehab unit was a transportation expense, not a medical expense and they wouldn’t cover.
All in all, in spite of her insurance, she still had about $4,000 to pay out of pocket.
To make matters worse, Maxie’s buddy Kent Conrad is moving the goal posts on the CBO window:
A 20 year window? No problem!
this is one of those times where I wish the White House would send Crazy Joe Biden over to Conrad’s office and have Biden beat the tar out of him, then leave with the 10 year window intact & Conrad’s vote on a strong public option in Biden’s pocket.
Unless the 10 Republicans perversely decide to support the Baucus bill, the key to whether it passes or not is these people:
MAX BAUCUS, MT – probably Yes
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV – definite No
KENT CONRAD, ND – probable Yes
JEFF BINGAMAN, NM – probable No, but squishy
JOHN F. KERRY, MA – probable No
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, AR – probable Yes
RON WYDEN, OR – Who the fuck knows?
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NY – probable No
DEBBIE STABENOW, MI – probable No
MARIA CANTWELL, WA – Hasn’t declared one way or the other
BILL NELSON, FL – ptobable Yes
ROBERT MENENDEZ, NJ – probable No
THOMAS CARPER, DE – probable Yes
Let’s see the count:
5 Yes
6 No plus 10 Republican Noes
Wyden and Cantwell in play
Does Baucus know that he has Wyden and Cantwell on his side? Does he know that the Republicans will vote Yes just to hamstring the process?
Which of these Senators are movable by public pressure?
My guess is that the bill described in the framework will be DOA because the Republicans will not vote yes and 4 Dems vote No with them. Media narrative “Liberal Democrats kill bipartisanship.”
Very good point.
Until this summer, like in your post, I have not really paid attention to what I pay for health insurance through my employer plan and still am not aware of what their contribution is. At annual employee meetings, it is always a topice that managment tries to communicate to us that the insurance premiums are going up and they want us to be aware of that (to soften the blow for the lack of pay increases). Interestingly, I work for a co-op.
This past January a new policy was implemented by my company. If your spouse has employer health insurance available to him/her and you include your spouse on your insurance, we would be assessed an additional $ 100 per month. I pay it because my wife is a school teacher and she would have to go to an HMO which is inferior to what my employer offers and she uses the insurance way more than I do.
Again, I am not sure what my employer contributes but I looked at my pay stub and Medicare costs me around $ 29.00 every two weeks. Health insurance is $ 167.00 every two weeks. I would gladly move that $ 167.00 to the medicare column if we could switch to Medicare for all.
You are paying around $4,300/year for health insurance, but you can sure that your company is paying another $1500-2000 on top of that. That $1500-2000 is coming out of your paycheck, too. Now, in a single-payer system that money (or some subset of it) would also be withheld, but it would be withheld by the government to pay for your health insurance.
Your company would be freed up of the cost and the administration of providing for your health care, so your overall pay (before taxes) could go up.
You wouldn’t have to worry about losing coverage if you lose or change your job. You could start a business without even considering your health care.
That’s the answer to “Your taxes will go up if we had single-payer”. Sure they will, but you won’t have to pay for insurance and neither will your employer.
My employer subsidizes 60% of my insurance. I’m looking at my pay stub right now. My cost is $110.72 biweekly (family coverage). What’s it to me if my income taxes go from $149.05 biweekly to $259.77? So my income tax rose by 74%, my net is the same and my employer saves $4318.08 a year,and those damn co-pays go away.
Obviously taxes wouldn’t have to go up 74% across the board; that would yield $1.5 trillion a year. So I probably would have an increased net. So would my employer. But my employers executives would be hurt, no free lunch here. The only people single-payer would hurt old be the million dollar bonus guys who probably have a totally subsidized insurance plan now.