Skip to main content

The airwaves have been filled with the Republican talking points, put forth by Mitch McConnell, that the Senate health care reform will result in "higher premiums, higher taxes, and massive cuts to Medicare." Of course, those of us who live in the reality-based community know that's utter bullshit. Nevertheless, we also know that talking points can easily take root in the general population. And for spineless, easily corruptible Democrats, popular perception - however ill-informed it may be - is more important than reality.

Therefore, it's important that we disseminate the truth -- Jonathon Gruber, an economist at MIT who conducted "microsimulation" analysis of the Senate HCR bill using data from the CBO, concludes that the bill will actually save money for those who purchase individual market coverage:

Gruber concludes that people purchasing individual insurance would save an annual $200 (singles) to $500 (families) in 2009 dollars. And people with low incomes would receive premium tax credits that would reduce the price that they pay for health insurance by as much as $2,500 to $7,500.

You can read the four page report here.

The report's bottom line is as follows:

Gruber’s conclusion: "[F]or those facing purchase in the non-group market, the ... bill will deliver savings ranging from $200 for singles to $500 for families in today’s dollars – even without subsidies. The savings are much larger for lower income populations that receive premium credits.

"This is in addition to the higher quality benefits that those in the exchange will receive, with actuarial values for low income populations well above what is typical in the non-group market today. It is also in addition to all the other benefits that this legislation will deliver to those consumers – in particular the guarantee, unavailable in most states, that prices would not be raised or the policy revoked if they became ill."

We need to be armed with as much information as possible to combat not only deceitful Republicans but spineless and health care industry owned Democrats like Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson and petty little bastards like Joe Lieberman. This is not to say that facts will prevent them from looking out for their own interests, but it makes it just a bit more difficult to get away with their bullshit.

Originally posted to John Campanelli on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 07:24 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  CBO didn't make a direct comparison (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfromga

    but their own estimates for individual market premiums were much lower than the baseline prediction they made late last year.

    •  Premiums and uncovered costs HAVE NO LIMITS (0+ / 0-)

      The pro PO groups and the media are lying about that. There are no limits on uncovered costs or co-pays unless you are already poor.

      If you have even a modest income, there is no way you can get a limit of any kind on anything. You are absolutely at the mercy of the insurance and drug companies raising prices as much as they want.

      Most of the 101,000 people who die each year of preventable causes, and 80,000 who die of careless mistakes, "have insurance"

      by Andiamo on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 11:18:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Clearly not a "case closed" situation (0+ / 0-)

    While his analysis is interesting, this won't end the discussion about what will happen to private insurance premiums under HCR.  Gruber can arguably be considered a partisan, having worked with three Dem candidates for President in 2008.  While that's not to say his analyisis is, or is not, accurate, he is not the kind of source that is going to end the discussion.

    Just as in any other situation, sources that are traditionally considered "nonpartisan" like CBO are going to have the last word as far as most of the public is concerned. If those kinds of sources come to the same conclusion, great.  If they don't, I think most people are going to rely on the CBO numbers, since that's generally been considered the authoritative non-partisan source.  

  •  Good report, but,,, (0+ / 0-)

    I'm doubt that it'll have much impact on critics like McConnell.  After all, he's representing the "I've got mine, so f*ck you crowd" who don't care about peons who'd be being their own premiums in the individual market.  Potentially good ammo for Lincoln and Nelson though - certainly can't hurt.

  •  That's what happened to me--actually, better.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobTrips

    in the market in Massachusetts.  I saved 25% in the first year, and my rate has yet to increase at the rate it used to.

    I was paying about $400/month without prescription coverage.  And I had to join the Chamber of Commerce to even do that well--it was worse if you didn't pay the CoC fee.  

    Now I'm paying about $300/month with prescription coverage (because I'm mandated to have that now, even though I don't need it).  

    $100 x 12 = $1200/year savings for those of you following along at home.

    The MA system isn't perfect, but it is better than the previous state of affairs.  

    Earns no money here for blogging, commenting, or driving traffic to any web site.

    by mem from somerville on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 08:09:57 AM PST

  •  Great catch (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fladem

    Gruber is a first rate economist.

    This type of analysis should get much wider play on the news networks and on this site.

  •  HCR just raised my group rate 50% (0+ / 0-)

    The "micro-model" is looking at individuals who do not receive their insurance from their employer. It isn't relevant to the bulk of health insurance subscribers in this country.

    Today, insurance companies are jacking rates as high as possible now ahead of any reform. So HCR is going to start costing me a lot of money come January whether it passes or not.

    •  No, HCR did not just raise your rate 50%... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stroszek

      Greedy assholes who run your insurance company raised your rate 50%.  

      Just like the credit card companies, they're gouging you for all they can before their gravy train gets derailed.

      Put the blame where it belongs....

      15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

      by BobTrips on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 09:37:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  you think they wouldn't have (0+ / 0-)

      jacked your rates anyway?

      You honestly think insurance companies hold off on raising rates just to be nice?

  •  Oh diary rescue (0+ / 0-)

    where out thou, this deserved a broader readership...

    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

    by fladem on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 10:03:17 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site