On a serious note, details of the Max Baucus Bill are drawing criticism.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125303845553412855.html
""This is not like shaving off things, this is reducing coverage for poor and working people," House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) said Monday. Mr. Rangel is an architect of the $1 trillion House health-care bill, which provides more generous subsidies.
Some Senate Democrats are voicing similar concerns. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) on Monday said there was "no way I can vote for the package" without changes. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) vowed to seek additional subsidies, or possibly a new tax break, aimed at helping working families, when the bill comes before committee. "Fundamentally, we're doing this for American families, and we need to make sure this is affordable," she said.
The Baucus bill would provide federal subsidies to individuals and families with incomes as high as 300% of the federal poverty line. For people whose incomes fall between 300% and 400% of the poverty line,
the bill would cap premiums at 13% of income.
Critics complain the 13% cap is too high and would impose unreasonable costs on middle-income family budgets. But Finance Committee aides argue that tens of millions of Americans would still benefit from the cap.
Opinion
The Senate Is Ready to Act on Health Care
Mr. Baucus said that because his bill would expand insurance coverage for Americans, "middle-class families are going to be much better off than they currently are." In an op-ed published Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Baucus said the "current system is simply unsustainable," and noted his bill would help small businesses and families stressed by the rapid growth in health costs. "The status quo is no longer an option," he said.
Republicans, meanwhile, have been seeking other changes to the bill. In private negotiations led by Mr. Baucus, Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) made a push this week to drop the proposed mandate requiring individuals to buy insurance. Instead, he has proposed creating a new "reinsurance pool" to help spread the risks associated with high-cost patients.
In a statement released late Tuesday, Mr. Grassley complained the Senate Democratic leadership is imposing an "artificial deadline" on the bipartisan talks led by Mr. Baucus, but vowed to "continue to work with" the chairman.
Health Care for America Now, a liberal advocacy group, estimates that a family of four earning $77,175 a year could pay as much as $10,033 a year for health insurance under Sen. Baucus's proposal. That is about $2,000 a year more than they would pay under a health bill passed through the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, as well as under two of the three bills passed through House committees.
Mr. Baucus's bill would also place higher caps than other versions on the amount consumers would pay for out-of-pocket health-care expenses.
It would allow insurance companies to charge older customers premiums that are as much as five times as high as those for younger customers, a provision sought by insurance companies. The other bills would restrict them from charging older customers more than twice as much."
It sounds like the debate has just begun. The cap will have to increase with Obama's mandate of no lifetime maximum payout and no pre-existing conditions.
This is especially true when you consider the average cost of an employer paid policy is $13,000 per year.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMAlWaPqqHfYA1aKXHRs7xjmXQMgD9ANTRAG0
"Health insurance premiums rose modestly in 2009
By TOM MURPHY (AP) – 8 hours ago
The cost of employer-sponsored health insurance rose modestly again this year, but researchers predict a return to bigger increases that may eventually produce crippling premiums if left unchecked.
Meanwhile, more workers with single coverage are facing high-deductible plans that make them pay $1,000 or more out of pocket before coverage starts, according to a report released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, a nonprofit research organization affiliated with the American Hospital Association.
The average annual premium — the amount charged for a fully insured policy — rose 5 percent for the third straight year to surpass $13,000 for employer-sponsored family health coverage.
Employers picked up about 74 percent of that cost, while workers paid the rest. Single coverage remained relatively flat at an average of $4,824, with employers paying 84 percent.
The 2009 increases represent much smaller growth than just a few years ago. Premiums increased anywhere from 10 percent to 13 percent from 2000 to 2004."
How can a 13% cap possibly work - when the median household income is less than $60,000?
[URL]http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
13% of $60,000 is only $7,800 - who is going to pay the difference $13,000 - $7,800 = $6,200 a 47% difference? Is Obama going to be able to cut out 47% of the cost? The numbers don't compute.
