Healthcare reform: Yeah, it was a failure

[aerius]

AP via Google

Medicare official doubts health care law savings

(AP) – 5 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

Foster's assessment came a day after Obama in his State of the Union message told lawmakers that he's open to improvements in the law, but unwilling to rehash the health care debate of the past two years. Republicans want to repeal the landmark legislation that provides coverage to more than 30 million people now uninsured, but lack the votes.

Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.

On the costs issue, "I would say false, more so than true," Foster responded.

As for people getting to keep their coverage, "not true in all cases."

Foster was a thorn in the side to the administration throughout the health care debate, doubting that Medicare cuts would prove to be politically sustainable and raising other questions. An equal opportunity skeptic, he was also a bane to the George W. Bush administration during the debate that led to creation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003. Obama White House officials dispute his analysis and predict that he will be proven wrong about the health care law. Republicans hang on his every word.

The comments Wednesday were unusually direct because Foster generally delivers his analysis in complicated technical memos.

Foster says analysis by his office shows that the health care law will raise the nation's health care tab modestly because newly insured people will be getting medical services they would have otherwise gone without.

Costs could also increase if Medicare cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies turn out to be politically unsustainable over the years. The actuary's office has projected those cuts would eventually force about 15 percent of providers into the red. The health care law funnels savings from the Medicare cuts to provide coverage to uninsured workers and their families.

As for people getting to keep their health insurance plan, Foster's office is projecting that more than 7 million Medicare recipients in private Medicare Advantage plans will eventually have to find other coverage, cutting enrollment in the plans by about half.

The health care law gradually cuts generous government payments to the plans, so insurers are expected to raise premiums or even drop out. And the main reason seniors have flocked to the private plans is that they offer lower out-of-pocket costs.

Medicare recipients who lose private coverage would still be guaranteed coverage in the traditional program, but they would likely have to take out a supplementary insurance plan for gaps in their coverage.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Someone remind me, what was the purpose of healthcare reform again?

[Gandalf]

And right here is the fuel for countless campaign commercials. "He said healthcare for all. Then he didn't!"

So in 2012 I guess he's running on DADT.

Republicans TOLD us it wouldn't work!

And then they made sure it didn't. Even if you're a 11/9 first responder, you get squat.

This is a party you can TRUST!

[Stargate Nerd]

He or the author of this article being disingenous about the keeping the insurance you have part. No one is forcing people off of Medicare Advantage. That was the promise of government not replacing peoples own coverage with inferior insurance by force. Government subsidies are a whole nother matter.

[Broomstick]

The whole "keep your insurance thing" was disingenuous because the fact is Americans have little or no choice in their health insurance. Before age 65 health insurance coverage is almost always determined by the person's employer or the employer of the head of household. If the employer changes policies then the employees and their families lose the old policy - they can either go with the new policy, get their own policy on the individual market (ha! VERY expensive!) or go "bare".

Medicare Advantage choices were based on what was offered in the person's geographic region, and plenty of providers have pulled out over the years, forcing those people to either go with a different Medicare Advantage policy or, as already mentioned, go back to tradition Medicare with a supplemental policy to cover the gaps if they could obtain it - if said person had had something like cancer or a pre-existing condition of some sort they were fucked as getting a "medi-gap" policy under those circumstances was either unlikely or very expensive.

However, even if 7 million people on Medicare Advantage may wind up back on traditional Medicare with (one hopes) a supplement, they will still have insurance coverage of some sort. And the article in the OP states that the health care reform under Obama will cover 30 million who had no insurance at all before this was passed. Seems to me that, flawed as it may be, it's still a net gain. 7 million might have to change health plans but will still have coverage while four times that many who had no insurance at all will now be covered.

[fgalkin]

This year, our insurance premium went up 52%. It's now over $2,000. We might have to downgrade to a lesser plan, and get inferior service because of this.

Yay reform!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Losonti Tokash]

My girlfriend and I are actually able to get insurance now so it doesn't ruin her family just so she can continue living. My heart breaks for you.

[salm]

This year, our insurance premium went up 52%. It's now over $2,000. We might have to downgrade to a lesser plan, and get inferior service because of this.

Yay reform!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Is that 2000 Dollars per month of per year?

[Edi]

This year, our insurance premium went up 52%. It's now over $2,000. We might have to downgrade to a lesser plan, and get inferior service because of this.

Yay reform!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Is that 2000 Dollars per month of per year?

Per month probably. This is the US we're talking about after all.

[Broomstick]

That would be extraordinarily high for an individual even in the US - the highest my spouse and I were ever quoted was $1,200 per month and that's with his multiple pre-existing conditions. Might be possible for a family, but really, I think we need clarification if that's per month or per year.