Ezra Klein: The Most Important Table You'll Read Today

[flpoljunkie]

(Better, but the out-of-pocket maximums allowable must be making Wellpoint smile.)

The most important table you'll read today



It's (the chart) the work of Jon Cohn and MIT's Jon Gruber, and it shows what health-care reform will mean for families at different levels of income.

The story isn't perfection but improvement. An insured family making $60,000 is likely to be paying almost $13,000 for coverage in 2016 and facing more than $12,000 in out-of-pocket costs if they're hit with a real medical emergency. Under reform, that same family will be paying $5,800 in premiums, and their out of pocket maximum will be $6,300. Their total risk, as Cohn puts it, has fallen from $25,000 to $12,000. That's still an embarrassment when judged against other industrialized nations where people aren't bankrupted because someone fell sick, but it's an enormous improvement compared with our nation.

And Cohn's table, if anything, understates the gains. For instance: That family making $60,000 could be turned away because the mother once had breast cancer. And if they can't get insurance, they are, of course, on the hook for everything they own. Under reform, that family can't be turned away from insurance.

Anyway, read Jon Cohn for much more.

By Ezra Klein
December 21, 2009

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_most_important_table_youll.html

[Bodhi BloodWave]

1. Thanks for posting this, not to surprised to see somebody had already unrecced it tho n/t

[flpoljunkie]

2. I see we already have another knee jerk 'Unrecommend.'

Did you even read the post?

[kirby]

8. Ignore it...

It will be drowned out by those who recommend it.

[kirby]

3. Here is why this sucks...

The difference between those two numbers is just our tax dollars being used to send checks to the insurance companies to make up the difference.
And for people who make more than that table, they still continue to pay outrageous rapidly growing costs each year.

This is not cost-control, it is just corporate subsidies.

[grantcart]

23. If you don't want to sign up for the insurance companies then sign up for the non profit option

[TheKentuckian]

41. How when you don't even have access to it?

Defend the bill but don't advise people they have a remedy that doesn't exist.

[grantcart]

51. Did you really think I posted something without knowing what existed.

Here it is in writing my friend

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf

go to page 55 line

2701(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Public Health Service Act

NON-PROFIT ENTITIES.—In entering into
21 contracts under paragraph (1), the Director shall
22 ensure that at least one contract is entered into with
23 a non-profit entity.

[kirby]

42. Non-profit != no overhead

A non-profit can still pay its CEO a huge amount, can still waste 20% on so called 'claims processing', and end up breaking even at the end of the year with no profit.

[grantcart]

53. agree so why not a state public option?

[kath]

30. ding, ding, ding!

[girl gone mad]

4. "And if they can't get insurance, they are, of course, on the hook for everything they own."

Not true at all.

[SpartanDem]

5. I hope everyone who says this bill will ruin lives sees this

I'll be the first to say the numbers could be better, but it will mean a significant improvement over the status quo for millions of people.

[cliffordu]

6. K&R....

But-but-but......IT'S BAAAADD....


(sorry.....couldn't help myself)

:hi:

[abelenkpe]

7. k

My problem with this chart is the amount in both columns is more than we currently pay.

And it's broken down by how much a family makes each year which always pisses me off. A family making 70,000 a year in Nebraska is different from a family making 70,000 a year in NY or LA. These things never seem to take that into account.

And is it just me or does paying 23 percent of ones income seem excessive? Yeah it's an improvement over 34 percent but really, both numbers suck. No wonder the middle class is under so much pressure.

[kirby]

9. Do you have insurance thru your employer?

That number is how much they pay. You might not see such a large number, but that is what it is like today.

[abelenkpe]

43. yes.

Keeping my fingers crossed that I can keep the job through this economic mess too.

So these amounts would stay intact along with coverage? Like most we've seen our costs rise and benefits reduced. What is to stop insurance companies from reducing benefits?

[madfloridian]

10. It is not a good bill, no matter how much Ezra loves it.

This part alone should shame our party for letting it pass.

Pre-Exisiting Condition Exclusion: The legislation bars insurers immediately from denying coverage to children based on a pre-existing condition. However, they are still free to do it to adults until 2014. Besides being a blatant exception to immediate consumer protections, this one is a true head-scratcher. Except for expensive risk pools, adults in the individual insurance market with pre-existing conditions have nowhere to go until 2014. Yet the coverage mandate begins in the 2013 tax year. So what are folks supposed to do in 2013? Take out a second mortgage to pay for health plan coverage that won't cover their pre-existing conditions (the risk pool requires going bare for 6 months, activating a 12-month pre-exisiting condition coverage exclusion) or pay a fine, just because lawmakers wanted a better CBO score?

Adults will have to wait until 2014 for pre-existing?

And these are the folks who have been battering the left all week?

[Hello_Kitty]

13. Ezra Klein is a 24 yo with a BA in political science

How he got elevated to the status of major health care policy wonk is beyond me. He is no more qualified to talk about health care policy than I am.

[madfloridian]

15. He agreed to toe the line.

That makes one a success at once. :shrug:

[flpoljunkie]

50. Klein prefers single payer, just like us--but he understands that's not possible with this Congress.

[frazzled]

47. And knows a hell of a lot more than Jane Hamsher ...

whose only credentials are having produced several not-so-great Hollywood films, including one for which she was sued in civil court and had to settle.

Who you gonna call.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. And?

Ezra Klein is presented as a serious credible spokesperson for HCR and doesn't deserve the position. Nothing against Ezra and I like his as a blogger but I've got sweatshirts older than him and he's got no credentials on health care policy that I'm aware of.

[frazzled]

49. And? Well, if you're going to bring up credentials ...

credentials count on both the pro and con side of the issue. I am not an ageist, despite my advanced years (nearing 60). I'll take anyone who is smart, educated on the subject, and thoughtful in their approach. But I have little tolerance for dilettantes who pick up on slogans, have little background in the subject, display their ignorance of provisions, and ignore the findings of the experts.

I have absolutely no problem with the WaPo having hired this smart young person. Or at least, no more problems than I have with the netroots grasping at "faux" experts who aren't at all.

[Hello_Kitty]

52. I have no problem with WaPo hiring him either

I have no problem with him espousing his views on this, or any issue. I have no problem with people giving his opinions serious consideration. I do have a problem with him being presented as an authority on health care policy when he has neither the academic credential nor any relevant life experience that I'm aware of. He has as much authority as me or Sarah Palin, frankly. Credentials and authority are supposed to mean something, and giving someone like Ezra an unearned position of authority is contributing to the dumbing-down of this country.

[frazzled]

57. Opinion is only half the story

It's whether the opinion is based on informed study or histrionics. In my view (admittedly an opinion, but one culled from reading), Klein has done all the relevant homework: he has read copiously all the policy studies that have come out over the years, has interviewed the players first hand (not politicians but the economists, health-care policy wonks, etc.), he studies the bills themselves ... and then offers opinions based on these. They are charts, graphs, wonk-talk, legislative language, etc., that I would have no hope of wading through or even comprehending fully on my own. I don't always agree with his opinions, but they are certainly based on a committed understanding of the subject matter.

Hamsher, on the other hand, has her hand in the till of politics, seems to get the "facts" wrong a lot, and tends toward agit-prop. Opinions based on these things are not as viable to me, by a long stretch.

[Hello_Kitty]

58. None of which are academic or professional credentials.

And I can read studies and talk to economists too but it still won't make me a policy expert. Ezra Klein is a 24 year old blogger with a BA who is being presented as an expert and an authority. I don't consider Hamsher an expert of any kind either. Both she and Ezra are pushing agendas but she is labeled as a blogger and pundit while Ezra is a "policy wonk".

[frazzled]

62. You earn the title of wonk because of how you think and what you do ...

not because of a degree or age.

You are really failing to see the distinction between measured study and blow-it-out-your-ass grandstanding. If there is no difference between the two for you, I can't really argue it further.

[Hello_Kitty]

63. There was "measured study" of NAFTA and deregulating the banks

Opponents were accused of "grandstanding". Look how well those worked out. I know it will come as a huge shock to you, but data is often manipulated to do what people want it to do, so having read a lot of it doesn't necessarily mean you've come to the right conclusion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

69. Hartmann doesn't even have that and is revered among the bill killers. (nt)

[kath]

35. +1. And what's this crap about "going bare" for 6 months -- I mean WTF? What if you're in a bad

car accident during that time, or your cancer comes back, or...

[CreekDog]

59. Look you can't vote for good, you can only vote for better

"good" doesn't have 60 votes for cloture and thus CANNOT be voted on.

now, i don't know what it will take to change that, but i sure as hell will not wait for "good", when we've waited some 16 years for "better" to even be given a chance.

:rant:

[joeybee12]

11. A fifth to a quarter of your income is good news? And the wages..

...are these pre or post taxes, ss, etc taken out? Because then we're looking at a higher percentage.

[ProSense]

16. Is it better than 30 to 70 percent? n/t

[flpoljunkie]

22. Pre-tax. Based on adjusted gross income (AGI).

[Hello_Kitty]

12. Yeah, we childless folks pretty much knew we'd be subsidizing parents, as per usual

BTW, only 27.5% of U.S. households have dependent children in them. Yet the "family of four" is always used to illustrate how great HCR will be. Put up a chart about how much singles and DINKs will be paying.

[flpoljunkie]

17. Doesn't family coverage usually encompass two adults with or without children?

[kirby]

21. No...

Rate categories are typically:

Individual (Single person)
Parent/Child (Single parents)
Couple (Two spouses)
Family (Two spouses plus dependents)

[flpoljunkie]

24. I think that depends on the company. BCBS PPO FL is Individual and Family rates only.

[Hello_Kitty]

34. It goes by FPL , which is based on income and the number of people in your family.

So a couple where one spouse is the breadwinner would constitute a "family". DINKs and singles are hosed under this plan. As are gay couples and unmarried straight ones. But hey, as long as you are in a Carrie Prejean approved opposite marriage and have dutifully procreated, this plan is pretty good for you!

[abelenkpe]

45. not at my job

the amounts one pays are broken down in three categories:

single 4%

single plus significant other (do not need to be married) 6%

family plan 8%



Don't know if it is the same at other places tho.

[kirby]

19. Just one detail...

Adding child dependents to a policy is not a 'linear' increase. It adds about 20%.

However, I can tell you this DINK currently pays $1100 per month for just two people.

[flpoljunkie]

27. The average family premium is over $13,500 for 2009 and climbing.

[Hello_Kitty]

46. The average single premium - for one person - is about $5K a year and rising.

Which is why DINKs are paying nearly as much for insurance as families and will be paying MORE for coverage than families with kids when this reform passes.

[Hello_Kitty]

40. Most likely you will continue to do so and your rates will continue to go up. eom

[silverweb]

14. K&R

:kick:

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Can we start with the bullshit about 36K being "150% of federal poverty level"?

I'm single, and can barely live on 34K. If I was the head of a family of 4, making 1 1/2 x the 'poverty level' at 36K, I could afford $6,100 liability no better than I could afford the 24K liability. I can't afford it now, as a single.

WTF good is 'more affordable' it it is still UNaffordable?

ON EDIT: There is a world of difference between having insurance and being able to USE that insurance.
Even if you are mandated to give your money to private insurers, you may not be able to see a doctor because of being unable to afford the co-pays. Why can't you afford the co-pays? Because you've already given your money to the insurance company.

[kath]

39. +1

Thanks for making a point I alluded to in my post below -- their concept of "affordable" is total freakin' bullshit.

[flpoljunkie]

55. The out-of-pocket maximums are too high, but monthly premiums are big improvement for this family

$163 monthly vs. $1003 monthly.

[AzDar]

20. Jeebus Wept.

[burning rain]

25. How very shocking and deeply surprising.

The fiscal conservative/social liberal critters at The Washington Post and The New Republic love the Senate healthcare bill. In equally shocking news, Mick Jagger recently admitted that he's long enjoyed shagging his groupies.

[grantcart]

26. Yesterday Axelrod said that premiums would be capped at 8% of annual income

That does not appear to be true in the table above


Can you clarify?

[flpoljunkie]

29. Obviously, Axelrod was mistaken.

[Mass]

36. If you cannot get insurance below 8 % of your revenue, you are entitled to a waiver.

So, the choice for a family above 250 % of the FDL is probably among those three:

= get a reasonable insurance for more than 8 %

= get a low actuary value (50 %)

= get no insurance and be ready to cover the costs yourself.

Pick your way of getting ruined: expensive insurance or useless insurance or no insurance.

[kath]

28. So how is it that in British Columbia, a family of 3 (or is it 4?) has total out-of-pocket costs of

$1300 per YEAR ($108/per month, per a Canadian poster here, with no deductibles, no co-pays, no other co-insurance or out-of-pocket costs, and low-cost prescription drugs)

Why the fuck should Americans have to pay TEN TIMES AS FREAKIN' MUCH as Canadians for health care??!?! (I know, I know, it's because the insurance co. CEOs have to make mega-billions.)

And I'd bet lots of money that the above table does not take into the account the utterly outrageous costs of prescription drugs -- if even a couple of people in that hypothetical family of 4 have ANY sort of chronic medical conditions, add THOUSANDS of dollars to their out-of-pocket costs.

And on what planet is it considered "affordable" for a family making $48K (BEFORE taxes, I assume) to pay TWENTY-ONE PERCENT of its income for heatlh care, PLUS prescription costs. Where, exactly, are they supposed to come up with $830+ per month??? The tooth fairy? With that sort of income, there is virtually NO wiggle-room in the family budget.

Gawd, I sure wish I lived in a civilized country...

[flpoljunkie]

37. Why? Because our lazy Congress is beholden to the lobbyists who fill their campaign coffers.

They are primarily working for the special interests, not the public interest. As Molly Ivins has said, 'they dance with the ones that brung 'em'--or in this case the lobbyists who bundle contributions for their campaign accounts.

And, until we have public financing of their campaigns, or else take an active part in our democracy, nothing will change!

[Mass]

38. Because the rest is subsidized by taxes, as it should be and also because there is cost control,

something this bill does not do.

[flpoljunkie]

60. They get healthcare. We get warfare.

[autorank]

31. Thanks for posting - note the date for figures, small print, bottom of chart - 2016

From the president's health care speech when it was going to take four years to implement reform to varoius House and Senate bills, there's always been a significant delay for implementation of the proposed reforms.

I've got news for the chart makers, the costs of health control are outrageous right now and not just for two parent, two child families - the basis for this chart. There are plenty of people outside that limited perspective, people who have problems RIGHT NOW.

But the only people benefiting from health care legislation RIGHT NOW are the shareholders of health insurance companies as their share prices increase. I wonder why those prices are going up?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

32. A note on Out-of-Pocket Maximums

Bear in mind, this is the most that you would be paying with co-payments and deductibles.

If your family is basically healthy, you may have only a few hundred dollars in co-payments (for annual check-ups) per year and nothing else other than your insurance premium.

[SpartanDem]

56. preventive care is free

if all you had were check ups, colonoscopies,etc you'd have no co-pays.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

61. Wasn't aware of that...

Very smart feature.

[high density]

33. Lots of government $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ going into those numbers

Which is fine, but let's not say they're savings or cost controls.

But that $50,000 income means you’re also eligible for federal subsidies. Large federal subsidies. In fact, the government will cover about two-thirds of the price, so that you’re left owing just $3,600.

[TheKentuckian]

44. That's not control, it is shifting aka a con

You'll never calculate your true out of pocket between taxes, premiums, out of pocket, loss of value of coverage, and the stolen wages of how ever many years along with the wage depression over a generation or so.

God fucking forbid corporate America ever take a haircut or even a trim to take off the deadends.

[andym]

54. They need to "bend" the cost curve even more

Is there any way to do that within context of the House and Senate bills?

A stronger premium/co-pay cap perhaps?
A cost cap on providers/hospitals (not allowed to exceed say Medicare+X%) where X is a small number?

[bvar22]

64. This is ALL just "cooling the Mark" .

The PURPOSE of this bill is to transfer $BILLIONS of Dollars of Public Money to the pockets of the For Profit Health Insurance Cartel.

This bill accomplishes that objective without providing "Health Care" to anyone.

Every American will be FORCED to BUY an invisible product every year from a For Profit Corporation that manufactures NOTHING, and produces NO wealth.
AND, the IRS will be the "Collection Agency".

Some people will be given some Public Money to help them BUY a High Deductible policy that most will be unable to afford to use. That Public Money MUST be given directly to a For Profit Corporation.

Man, that is SOME scam.
The Republicans could have NEVER gotten away with a SCAM that big.

[Cowpunk]

65. Is this stuff, like Nate Silver's, based on the version with Public Option?

I haven't heard that the latest version has been scored, and Klein and Cohn don't say which version their numbers come from. Color me suspicious.

[rapturedbyrobots]

66. ezra klein needs to meet some poor people

instead of referencing charts about how good the bill is for middle class families with insurance (and i'm sure it will help many of those people)....those who can already afford to opt in. he should be making charts showing the effect of mandating insurance on people who can't afford insurance to begin with ...you know...those currently spending $0 on premiums and still struggling to make ends meet. instead of breaking it down by mean income...break it down by true cost against expendable income...which in many cases is close to or at nothing.

[jeanpalmer]

67. This chart is completely dishonest. It's a fraud

because it fails to note that many people's "costs without reform legislation" are negligible or zero because they don't buy insurance. He should have had another column titled "costs without reform legislation for those people who don't buy insurance." For millions of people in that group, their current cost without "reform" legislation is $0 or close to it. Of course, he couldn't include that column because it would highlight how expensive either one of the insurance scams is.

For people young and/or healthy who now don't buy insurance, this new program will provide a severe economic jolt to their pocketbooks. It will act as a big salary reduction for them.

[flpoljunkie]

70. Good point. The subsidies ought to be increased to make insurance more affordable.

Obama, the candidate, said you don't need a mandate if insurance is readily available and affordable. This bill has an individual mandate and is not affordable for many uninsured people. This is the bill's greatest failing.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. I don't think people appreciate the political importance of the subsidies

Getting past "I don't want to pay for somebody else's health care" is a major political hurdle that has now been cleared. Cost controls will come when the politicians are forced to deal with the grim reality that the current scheme is unaffordable. But for now I think there is some rejoicing to do in the fact that we've used tax money to subsidize health insurance and that the Republicans fought us tooth and nail on that because they believe that anybody who is unable to afford insurance doesn't deserve health care.

[wicket]

71. K & R

:kick:

[uponit7771]

72. Kick!!