CBO: Health Insurance Premium Assistance Bill Hindered By Exchanges

TPMDC spins (here's Ezra spinning) the CBO report on the effect of "health care reform" on insurance premiums:

According to CBO, average premiums in the individual market would increase 10 to 13 percent because of provisions in the Senate health care bill, but, crucially, most people (about 57 percent) would actually find themselves paying significantly less money for insurance, thanks to federal subsidies for low- and middle-class consumers.

You see, if the government ASSISTS you in paying your health insurance premium, you will pay less of the amount due for your health insurance premium. Who'da thunk it? Thanks Gawd for the Exchange, which actually does nothing for anyone (indeed, it actually raises premiums for non-subsidized participants), except the private insurance companies (and the Stupak Amendment.) But the Village Pom Poms will insist it is the "most important part" of "health care reform." Got it?

Speaking for me only

< Political Bargaining And The Opt Out | New CBO Report on Health Care Legislation (Excise Tax ) >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Funny to see Ezra (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    celebrating premium increases.

    The dishonesty is something to see.

    Bush's Medicare prescription drug all over again (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 12:19:07 PM EST
    All these subsidies and tax deductions/credits are mechanisms by which funds flow from the public treasury to private hands.

    Private industry views these mechanisms as follows:

    "If our customers could afford $100 before this new subsidy (tax deduction/credit, take your pick), they can now afford to pay us $120 for the same thing."

    Apply the above analysis to college tuition, home mortgage interest rates, prescription drugs and any other good or service.  Poor people will be soaked for exactly the same out of their own pocket amount as they would be without any subsidies.  The subsidy just provides that much more to private insurers.

    A progressive income/net worth tax funding a sole source, government-provided health insurance, with every man, woman, and child in the US compring a single risk pool, would be cheaper for all and certainly for the poor. What is being considered in the Senate can be thought of as a flat tax  in the form of insurance premiums to fund services the government has unwisely seen fit to have privatized.

    If the government (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 06:55:41 PM EST
    is giving someone money then someone is paying for it.

    Given that the PRC is tired of funding Obama's grand schemes I say that the payer is us.

    The only fair way is a single payer system modeled after Medicare and paid for by a national sales tax. That way everyone, illegal aliens, dope dealers.... everyone in the gray market... is included and the elderly isn't ripped off to pay for them.


    This is a pretty frustrating time (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    it seems like many people have decided to put down their weapons and stop fighting for anything but the worst the Senate can provide.  Does that change anything, Lieberman's position for example?  No.

    Honestly, I thought this was the point where the President would jump in.  The Congressheep are running wild.

    From here on the only people running the show it seems like are they lobbyists filling the pockets of our most difficult "Dem" Senators.

    And the conservative Catholic bishops. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 12:35:58 PM EST