Tag Archives: senate health bill

New Health Care Law

Unpleasant Surprises for States in the Senate Health Bill

6 Comments

For example, the federal government would pick up the entire cost for the first two years and 95 percent of the cost for the next three years for newly covered working parents in Alabama, which now covers only those making up to 24 percent of the federal poverty level.

But it would pay just 50 percent of the cost for most of those newly enrolled in California, because California already makes eligible working parents earning up to 106 percent of the poverty level and its Medicaid assistance is set at 50 percent. California would get a more generous reimbursement, about 83 percent, only for parents earning from 106 percent to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

Full report on states with expanded Medicaid coverage.

Medicare

CBO: You Can’t Double-Count Medicare Savings

5 Comments

Democrats in Congress are claiming that cuts in Medicare spending will both pay for health reform and add to Medicare’s long-term solvency. But a new CBO report says it’s either/or, but not both. [Of course, this also implies that the Medicare and Social Security trust funds are not holding anything of value — Congress has been double-counting there since the inception of those programs.] 

New Health Care Law

Is the Senate Health Bill Unconstitutional?

6 Comments

This is Richard A. Epstein, writing in The Wall Street Journal:

The constitutional art of rate regulation sought to keep monopolists at competitive rates of return. To control against the risk of confiscatory rates, the Supreme Court also required the state regulator to allow each firm to obtain a market rate of return on its invested capital, taking into account the inherent riskiness of the venture. The orthodox legal approach was summed up in Justice William Rehnquist’s unanimous 1989 decision in Duquesne Light v. Barasch [which] allowed the state regulators a wide choice of methods so long as the “bottom line” secured the appropriate rate of return. There’s no need to discuss the fine points here, because not one syllable in the Reid bill is dedicated to securing that constitutionally guaranteed minimum rate of return.

The WSJ article is based on a longer study released by the Manhattan Institute.

New Health Care Law

In the Senate Health Bill, Some are More Equal than Others

4 Comments

If your employer doesn’t provide you with health insurance, your federal subsidy will be 2½ times larger, according to James C. Capretta:

Consider a hypothetical family of four with an income at 200 percent of the federal poverty line (or about $48,000 in 2016). Under the Reid plan, that family would pay 6.5 percent of its household income, or $3,120, as a premium [in the new health insurance exchange]. Their employer would pay a fee of $750 to cover some of the cost. The rest of the premium — $10,230 in this example — would get paid by the federal government.

By contrast, a worker with the same total compensation from his employer but with job-based insurance would enjoy a tax advantage of about $4,300 from employer-paid premiums. That’s nearly $6,000 less in governmental support than the worker who is eligible for direct subsidization in the exchange.

Uncategorized

2009/12/28

5 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Senate health bill: “The insurance companies are going to make out like bandits; the drug companies are going to make out like bandits… Nothing was done that didn’t serve the big money interests.”

Scott Gottlieb (New York Post): “The plan creates a single national health-insurance policy. Consumers’ only real option is to trade higher co-pays for lower premiums. But we’ll all get the same package of benefits established by a series of new agencies and an ‘insurance czar’ seated in Washington.”

Paul Krugman (New York Times): “There are three main groups of critics” of the Senate health bill: “the crazy right,” “the Bah Humbug … fiscal scolds,” and the uncompromising “progressives.” [Those on the right are either insane or morally defective, while those on the left are merely mistaken.]

George Will (Washington Post): “Reid had two advantages — the spending, taxing and borrowing powers of the federal leviathan, and an almost gorgeous absence of scruples or principles. Principles are general rules, such as: Nebraska should not be exempt from burdens imposed on the other 49 states.

New Health Care Law

Cash for Cloture

6 Comments

This is adapted from a Dana Milbank column in The Washington Post:

The Louisiana Purchase: $100 million in extra Medicaid money for the Bayou State, requested by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

The Cornhusker Kickback:  $100 million in extra Medicaid money, this time for Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

U Con:  $100 million meant for a medical center in Connecticut for Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)

Continue reading Cash for Cloture →

Health Care Costs

Study: Premiums Will Be Much Higher than CBO Estimates

6 Comments

Oliver Wyman (in a study for BlueCross Blue Shield) finds that premiums will be much higher under the Senate health bill than the CBO has estimated. Premiums for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own will go up 54%. Premiums for small businesses will go up 20%. Both numbers are over 5 years and both numbers exclude the impact of medical inflation.