TPMDC

Baucus Releases Health Care Plan Summary


Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Yesterday, we reported some of the key aspects of Sen. Max Baucus' health care proposal, now being circulated among members of the Senate Finance Committee. A more comprehensive explanation can be found in this 18-page summary. I'll have more to report on this shortly.

Baucus is meeting with the so-called "Gang of Six" at 3 p.m. today to gauge the level of support this plan has from members of the minority.

Comments (13) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

September 8, 2009 1:27 PM   

Goddamn. Someone open a window.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

September 8, 2009 1:35 PM   

Baucus is meeting with the so-called "Gang of Six" at 3 p.m. today to gauge the level of support this plan has from members of the minority.

Hopefully this is going to be the last meeting of the gang of six, because if Baucus' plan is still to get his bill passed using their support then he's learned nothing over the break at all...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 8, 2009 1:42 PM   

Why is our healthcare reform being determined by a "gang" anyway? We all know this gang of six is run by the gang of insurance lobbyists, big pharma and other monied interests. Hopefully, this "gang's" proposal will be shot down once it reaches the floor of the congress and senate. That's one drive by shooting that would make sense in the world.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 8, 2009 2:07 PM   

The 65 percent minimum actuarial value and the 13 percent affordability cap are going to have to be changed. That would mean a family of four earning $80,000/yr. would have to spend 13 percent of their income on premiums alone for a policy that has a $1,500-$2,000 deductible and $10,000 out-of-pocket cap. This means that if this family had a diabetic child, they would have to spend 25.5 percent of their income [(0.13*$80K+$10K)/$80K] on health care. Whether or not this is the public option or a private plan offering the policy, I don't think this is going to fly with the public.

At the end of the day, what's going to determine the legislation's political fate not the public option or the death panels. What is going to determine the legislation's fate is whether or not the American people believe benefits of the investment outweigh the costs. If the bill's price tag goes significantly above a certain level, then many families with employer-based health care will protest their significantly negatively affected health benefits. Conversely, if the bill's price tag goes significantly below $900 billion, many families who don't get their health insurance through their employer will be required to spend a greater portion of their income on health care. Balancing this tradeoff is the question Democrats must now ask themselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 8, 2009 2:21 PM    in reply to jimbomoron

It would be nice to have a factual basis for these types of evaluations.

What percentage of their income do those with employer-based coverage pay now?

What percentage of their income do those without employer-based coverage pay now?

Alternatively, what is the average actuarial value (percent of expenses covered) by employer based coverage, individual (non employer based), and Medicare?

How much more or less is a policy worth if a person cannot be denied on the basis of pre-existing condition, cannot be dropped, has no lifetime limit, and is price on a community-rated, rather than experience rated basis? Is there a value to the added security?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 8, 2009 4:27 PM    in reply to jimbomoron

If the bill's price tag goes significantly above a certain level, then many families with employer-based health care will protest their significantly negatively affected health benefits.

I don't understand this, please explain.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 8, 2009 3:23 PM   

Congratulations to the gang! Using their standards, my new insurance premium would be $1,882.50 per MONTH for a single high deductible policy. Due to a cut back in hours, my current gross salary is $1,100 per month. My husband draws social security and that's our only other source of income.

Since they're requiring that pre-x be covered you can take it to the bank that premiums will increase.

I do not want a subsidy, I want to be able to buy affordable insurance! I've been hanging on, hoping for something that would help me. This is a cruel joke. When I finish crying, I might write more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 8, 2009 3:49 PM   

this seems like a windfall for the healthcare industry on the backs of the taxpayer. if i read this correctly it seems like the taxpayer will pay for the poor and people with catastrophic injuries without having the ability to build up large reserves and invest these reserves in marketable securities from unused premiums like insurance companies will be able to do. the only fallback the taxpayer seems to have is this ombudsman and we know how well these people work on keeping the media straight.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 8, 2009 4:44 PM    in reply to lamonth

Not at all. Insurance companies are regulated at the state level. Most states require that insurance companies have large reserves to cover the claims. In addition many of those same companies get reinsurance so that the claim does get paid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 8, 2009 4:37 PM   

Yesterday TPM said the Baucus plan has neither public option nor co-ops, but on pp. 5-7 of the summary it outlines a plan for co-ops.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 8, 2009 5:20 PM   

Is it just me or do others who view the photo of Baucus above, see a Pinocchio nose growing?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 8, 2009 6:33 PM   

People, time to move on. Mark my words, Congress will pass healthcare "reform' by mandating everyone pay the insurance companies whatever they charge for insurance, and then raise your taxes to fund Medicare and Medicaid, which, by the way, is due to go bankrupt in the next few years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 3:07 AM   

The standard that needs to be applied is the cost of Medicare. Under Medicare the administrative costs run about 4%. The industry costs are far in excess of that and that overage is where the savings have to come from. Congress has to devise and mandate implementation of a systemic administrative process that controls the costs. We have 1300 some odd providers in this country all going their own way on this and if that doesn't change the greatest opportunity to introduce cost controls will have been ignored.

The real issue is we have to get our systemic costs in line with our competitors in the global marketplace. We will never be able to compete for jobs in this marketplace if we don't. Congress has got to take control of this. If they don't we are screwed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on