CBO: Health Care Reform Will Lower Out-Of-Pocket Burden For Most Consumers

Meanwhile, Monday morning quarterback Dr. Krauthammer recycles the same old GOP talking points: Scrap the whole thing and start over. Tort reform would save half a trillion (!), allow people to buy insurance across state lines, which he compares to buying oranges from Florida, and taxing employer provided health insurance benefits.
Did he run that last one by the GOP leadership? They are allergic to any tax increase, no matter how justified.

The reason premiums will increase on average is because the plans will offer more coverage with less of a cost-sharing burden on the consumer. Eliminate all the high deductible, catastrophic illness junk policies and the "average" is going to rise with reform or without it.

projections for 2016? Hilarious. 2 year projections.

People who get subsidies will pay less, news at 11.

and then those who get less insurance will pay less as well. Priceless.

Anything on this:

Until 2014, insurance companies could continue to deny coverage or charge higher premiums based on people's medical history. Another highly touted reform -- banning annual and lifetime limits on coverage -- would take effect in 2010, but it would permit significant exceptions.

Even with those rules in place, "there's no power to really hold the insurance companies accountable," said consumer advocate Betty Ahrens, executive director of the Iowa Citizen Action Network. "It's toothless."

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said the bill was a compromise. "This is not the legislation we would have written in a perfect world, but Senator Reid believes that this bill has the best chance possible to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster," Manley said.

...and...

A close reading of the bill reveals other surprises, like the section titled "No lifetime or annual limits," which is intended to protect people from huge out-of-pocket expenses.

Where annual benefits are concerned, the Senate bill bans only "unreasonable" limits. What that means is not spelled out; a Senate aide said the Treasury Department would set the standard.

In addition, the bill says that certain health plans could continue to use annual and lifetime limits. As Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University, interprets it, those potentially exempt from the ban include companies that self-insure, meaning they pay employee health benefits out of their own coffers, and businesses with more than 100 employees.

Further, the prohibition on lifetime and annual limits applies only to limits "on the dollar value of benefits."

In the past, health plans have gotten around restrictions measured in dollars. In 1996, Congress passed a law that said employers could not set lower dollar limits on mental health coverage than on medical and surgical coverage.

the whole article is worth a read
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112902425.html

My question is what would the premiums be if there were no reform? Will republicans say it will be less under their plan?

The same substantial degree of uncertainty that surrounds CBO and JCT’s estimates of the impact that the proposal would have on insurance coverage rates and the federal budget also accompanies this analysis of the proposal’s effects on premiums.

Nuff said. And still no kiss!

Without a public option, the bill is a joke.
But here is a public option that is less expensive and maybe more sensible:
For a relatively low fee - say $500/year - the government could furnish "semi-catastrophic insurance". This would provide 100% coverage for all medical expenses over, say, $50,000. Only a small % of the population exceeds that amount (although a few exceed it by 10-fold) so the actual payout would be quite small. The government should invest in case managers and invest heavily in fraud detection (?perhaps with a bounty system??) to help manage expenses.
Meanwhile, Aetna, Health Net, Anthem, etc could sell policies which cover costs between $1000 - $50,000. The costs of these policies should be quite low; if they're not, then it should "trigger" anti-trust legislation. Throw in a little tort reform, and... problem solved. The general unpopularity od attorney and insurance companies should make this a slam-dunk if their republican shills can't claim that the plan will bankrupt the country. Of course, they'll claim ANYTHING, won't they!