From Flopping Aces

America’s Health Insurance Plans commissioned a study from PriceWaterhouseCoopers recently on the Baucus health bill and it shows many things that we all expected and feared would happen. The cost of insurance will go waaaaay up….by about 18% on average ON TOP of the expected inflation.

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:
  1. A new tax on high-cost health care plans,
  2. Insurance market reforms coupled with a weak coverage requirement,
  3. Cost-shifting as a result of cuts to Medicare
  4. 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:
  1. 26 percent between 2009 and 2013 under the current system and by 40 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.
  2. 50 percent between 2009 and 2016 under the current system and by 73 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.
  3. 79 percent between 2009 and 2019 under the current system and by 111 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.

America’s Health Insurance Plans asked PricewaterhouseCoopers to check out the impact of four components in the Baucus bill:

• Insurance market reforms and consumer protections that would raise health insurance premiums for individuals and families if the reforms are not coupled with an effective coverage requirement.
• An excise tax on employer-sponsored high value health plans (or “Cadillac plans”) that in a few years could also raise premiums for some moderate value plans.
• Cuts in payment rates in public programs that could increase cost shifting to private sector businesses and consumers. These changes are expected to more than offset the potential reduction in cost shifting resulting from providing coverage to the uninsured.
• New taxes on health sector entities that are likely to be passed through to consumers.

And found the following:

This analysis shows that the cost of the average family coverage is approximately $12,300 today and could be expected to increase to approximately:

• $15,500 in 2013 under current law and to $17,200 if these provisions are implemented.
• $18,400 in 2016 under current law and to $21,300 if these provisions are implemented.
• $21,900 in 2019 under current law and to $25,900 if these provisions are implemented.

This analysis shows that the cost of the average single coverage is $4,600 today and could be expected to increase to:

• $5,800 in 2013 under current law and to $6,400 if these provisions are implemented.
• $6,900 in 2016 under current law and to $7,900 if these provisions are implemented.
• $8,200 in 2019 under current law and to $9,700 if these provisions are implemented.

…by 2019 the cost of single coverage is expected to increase by $1,500 more than it would under the current system and the cost of family coverage is expected to increase by $4,000 more than it would under the current system. This amounts to an additional 18 percent increase in premiums by 2019. The overall 18 percent increase is a composite of increases by market segment as follows:

• 49% increase for the non-group (individual) market;
• 28% increase for small employers (those firms with fewer than 50 employees);
• 11% increase for large employers with insured coverage; and,
• 9% increase for self-insured employers.

The overall impact of these provisions will be to increase the cost of private health insurance coverage for individuals, families, and businesses. The net impact of these increases on households would include the impact of these increases and the new subsidies provided under the bill.

You can check out the whole report here.

Senator Barrasso visited Fox News this morning and discussed the findings:

Liberal sites are crying about the study complaining that the study doesn’t take into consideration the subsidies:

But this accounting leaves out some pretty big things, starting with the subsidies that would help people buy insurance.

~~~

Now, the subsidies are not available to everybody, since they phase out with income and are only available through the insurance exchanges. As a result, people with higher incomes really would face higher premiums.

Ed Morrissey:

…PWC wanted to take a look at the actual cost of premiums, not the impact on subsidies, which is a political rather than economic question. The subsidies will still be in place, but they will apply to policies that cost a lot more than Baucus projected.

How much more? Take a look at this analysis from page 6 of the report:

PwC also examined the impact of the excise tax on the mandated plans expected to be offered under the state health insurance exchanges detailed in the Senate Finance Committee Bill. We estimate that in many metropolitan areas, which tend to have higher than average medical costs, the lowest option plan (Bronze Plan) would be considered a “Cadillac plan” as early as 2016. By 2016 at least one of the mandated plans will be considered a “Cadillac plan” and be subject to the 40 percent excise tax in 17 of 50 states. By 2019 at least one of the mandated plans will be considered a “Cadillac plan” and be subject to the 40 percent excise tax in 24 of 50 states.

Barasso didn’t get fooled by the subsidy red herring, either. He notes that the subsidies don’t start until 2013, but the taxes and fees kick in immediately. That will start the price pressure on premiums next year, not in 2013, and it will actually make the problem of uninsured worse in the short run.

Besides, what was the rationale for the excise tax on Cadillac plans in the first place? It intended to discourage plans that allowed for overuse of the system. By the end of its first decade, the Baucus plan makes most plans subject to that tax, which means that there is no real penalty for offering them or buying them. It transforms quickly into another general industry tax and does nothing to encourage rational use of the system.
They want people to think that these taxes will only affect the rich, but by the time this is all through anyone making 25 grand will be considered rich by the Obama government. But sure, there will be people who benefit from the plan. Those who meet the standards for subsidies or those who get the government plan will see prices reduced at the cost of all the rest of us paying more. And still they estimate that 25 million will remain uninsured by this Baucus plan.

Just fantastic.

And remember, Obama said if we dig the plan we have currently we can keep it…he leaves out a key point tho:

The government would also levy more payroll taxes. Included in a footnote in the CBO report is the revelation that the government expects to raise an extra $83 billion in payroll taxes in the next 10 years thanks to the higher taxable wages they predict employers will offer in place of non-taxable health care benefits.

Wonderful.

also:

Good News: GOP Picking Up Steam for 2009, 2010 Comeback

Bad News: Democrats ready to get dirty despite years of telling US that such tactics alienate the voters!

Polls continue to show strength for the GOP in the two hot governor’s races to be decided this November in Virginia and New Jersey. In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell holds a comfortable lead for governor over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds. With the mud the Democrat Deeds has been slinging his nickname became: “Dirty Deeds.” Afraid to talk about the issues, where Virginia voters are increasingly remorseful about the mistake their state made in voting for Obama in 2008, Deeds has launched a campaign of personal attacks and phony charges that are so transparent voters are laughing at him.

The same is true in New Jersey where the Democrat Jon Corzine, running for re-election. Instead of focusing on the issues he attacks his opponent Chris Christie for being fat. That race is tightening after an early Christie lead.

What’s clear in this dress rehearsal for 2010 congressional elections is that Democrats are desperate to avoid discussing the issues of spending, health care, carbon taxes and the problem of unemployment. Instead, they resort to throwing mud hoping it will stick.

Defeat Harry Reid and Other GOP Senate Gains?

Just in the last week we have new signs of life in the GOP bid to get rid of Senate Majority Leader Harry “This war is lost” Reid. Another round of polling matches earlier results which show Nevadans are tired of the man Democrats have used to wield the hatchet in Washington since Democrats retook control of the Senate. Either of the top GOP leaders in that race could beat Reid if the election were held today.

But that’s not all. In Delaware, Mike Castle, the former GOP Governor and Congressman is set to run for the Senate seat formerly held by V.P. “Bumbling” Joe Biden. His likely opponent is Biden’s bumbling son Beau who hopes to tar Castle as being too close to former President George W. Bush. Will that blame Bush strategy work years after Bush has left office? I doubt it.

Meanwhile in Illinois, the race is on to fill the senate seat of Barack Obama after the joke Roland “I bought this seat” Burris leaves office. GOP Congressman Mark Kirk, known for his ability to repeatedly win re-election in his Democrat-leaning district, announced Monday that he has raised more than $1.6 million during the third quarter. Kirk’s likely Democrat opponents in this race include Tony Rezko’s former banker who has suspected ties to the mob, and a former Chief of Staff to disgraced former Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Will Illinois voters go for more Democrat corruption or turn instead to a respected GOP congressman? My guess is that they are tired of being a laughingstock.

WARNING WILL ROBINSON… DANGER!

After years of being told that voters don’t like negative attacks (or does that just apply to Republicans?) Democrats appear to be ramping up the slime machine.

Democrats Must Attack to Win in 2010, Strategists Say
By JOHN HARWOOD
The Caucus- NY Times
October 12, 2009

New Jersey Republicans complain that Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, has turned nasty to gain ground in his re-election bid this year. Republicans elsewhere should brace themselves.

That is because Mr. Corzine’s strategy for a comeback victory has turned into a template for Democratic candidates to survive in the 2010 midterm elections. Its shorthand description: winning ugly.

Now that Democrats control the White House, Congress and most governorships, voters’ discontent with the status quo represents their burden, which has Democratic strategists considering tactics to push back challengers.

“Very often the instinct for an incumbent party is to defend and justify,” said Geoff Garin, a pollster for Democratic candidates. “But in this kind of environment, the best defense is a good offense.
…
The fallout for Democratic Congressional candidates is clear. In a recent Gallup survey, independent voters preferred Republican candidates for Congress by 45 percent to 36 percent; last October, they favored Democratic candidates 46 percent to 39 percent.