Author Topic: The Massive Costs of "Affordable Health Care" - BOHICA x 50 !!!!!!  (Read 644 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41757
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Affordable” Health Care
By: emptywheel Sunday December 27, 2009 7:08 am
       

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/12/27/affordable-health-care/
________________________ ________________________ ______

I’ve been seeing a bunch of single, relatively young men with comfortable incomes argue that the health care reform is “affordable.” But seeing Nate argue that the high costs the middle class is still being asked to bear under the Senate health care bill is just a matter of  “having to cut back on vacations, entertainment and meals out versus filing for bankruptcy or losing one’s home,” I wanted to hit the question of affordability one more time, to show that this isn’t a matter of eating home more often, but rather of precisely the debt problems that Nate says reform will prevent.

Here’s a version of one family’s total household costs under the plan: a middle class family with two cars and some child care costs. Note, in this scenario, I’m assuming the middle class family will pay 7.9% of its income for health insurance premium, significantly less than the 9.8% the plan assumes that family could pay to get the subsidies available. This, then, shows what a family would be required to pay (or incur a penalty) under the 8% opt-out rule.

301% of Poverty Level: $66,370

Federal Taxes (estimate from this page, includes FICA): $8,628 (13% of income)

State Taxes (using MI rates on $30,000 of income): $1,305 (2% of income)

Food (using “low-cost USDA plan” for family of four): $7,712 (12% of income)

Home (assume a straight 30% of income): $19,275 (30% of income)

Child care (average cost for just one pre-school child in MI): $6,216

Health insurance premium: $5,243 (7.9% of income, max amount before opt-out w/o penalty allowed)

Transportation (assume 2 cars, 12,000 miles each, @IRS deductible cost of $.55/mile): $13,200*

Heat, electricity, water: $1,500

Phone, cable, internet: $1,200

Total: $64,276 (97% of income)

Remainder (for health care out-of-pocket, debt, clothing, etc.): $2,091

In other words, assuming this family had no debt (except for that related to the two cars), no clothing costs, and no other necessary costs–all completely unrealistic assumptions–it would be able to incur just $6,970 of medical care out-of-pocket costs before spending all that $2,091 and going into debt (the opt-out is based on an insurance plan that provides 70% of costs, so this assumes the family will pay 30% of health care costs). Yet that family would be expected to spend up to $5,882 more out of pocket before the “subsidies” started picking up its out-of-pocket expenses. (If the family paid the full 9.8% of its income on premiums–at which point it would become eligible for subsidies under the plan–it would have just $825 left to spend on all other expenses, including health care out-of-pocket expenses.)

This family couldn’t even go through a normal childbirth without going into debt.

Now, a few words about these costs. The transportation costs, while based on official numbers, seem high. But since I’ve used MI numbers–which are cheap compared to other states–for state income tax and child care, I thought it fair to assume this family had two fully average car mileages with associated costs.

The utilities costs are based on my own costs for a 1000 square foot, very well-insulated home, with the winter thermostat set at 64 degrees, and with no air conditioning use.

The one expense in here that might be high are the telecom costs–which I figured at $100/month. That amount would pay either a Comcast phone/basic cable/internet package, or a land line plus a family cell phone package with no internet or cable. So if a family did without any cable package, used dial-up internet access, and had only an emergency cell phone, the family might get by paying $45/month instead of the $100/month I’ve calculated.

Note what these calculations don’t include: First, there’s no budget line in here for vacations, and while the mileage probably would allow for visits to family, it would not otherwise allow for vacations. It also doesn’t allow for any meals out–the low cost food basket used to generate this cost assumes “all meals and snacks are prepared at home.” It also assumes the family doesn’t spend as much money on some more expensive food items–like sweets–that most Americans eat more of (the low cost food basket includes 58% fewer sweets calories than actually consumed). Admittedly, by assuming the family might have basic cable, it includes some entertainment costs, but even if it cut that expense, it would only save $360/year, not enough to pay the out-of-pocket costs expected under the plan.

In other words, this family is not doing without vacations or meals out to pay for health care: it is driving an unsafe car; it is eating less than even the USDA says it would spend; it is not paying off its existing debts. All of those things are ways for the middle class to fall out of the middle class. And this is all before it incurs any significant health care costs!

This is why the experience from MA is so critical: 21% of people surveyed had forgone necessary medical care in the previous year because of cost. That’s presumably what would happen with this family. It would pay almost 8% of its income for insurance premiums, already taxing its budget, but it would be unable to get any care aside from what did not incur any out-of-pocket care. This family would basically spend over $5,000 a year for yearly check-ups.

Obviously, this does not take away from the fact that the poor will get health care, with subsidies more realistically set to income levels. It does not take away from the biggest group of uninsured will get some kind of coverage. For those, reform is a vast improvement.

But for the middle class–those above 300% of poverty–this remains unaffordable, and the mandate threatens to put those families into debt without giving them health care in exchange.

*As dagoril pointed out in comments, the IRS is lowering the mileage deduction for next year from $.55 to $.50.  So as of next week, these calculations would change, suggesting this family would spend $12,000 on transportation, giving them another $1,200 to spend.


________________________ _______________

Do guys understand WTF is going to happen to you once this treasonous DEATHCARE bill goes into effect?   

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: The Massive Costs of "Affordable Health Care" - BOHICA x 50 !!!!!!
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2009, 09:03:03 AM »
That's crazy.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41757
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Massive Costs of "Affordable Health Care" - BOHICA x 50 !!!!!!
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2009, 09:06:42 AM »
That's crazy.

This actually is a very good article and breaks it down in a way most people can understand now. 

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: The Massive Costs of "Affordable Health Care" - BOHICA x 50 !!!!!!
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2009, 09:17:03 AM »
This actually is a very good article and breaks it down in a way most people can understand now. 


I'm really thinking at this point that many of the libs just don't give a fuck.  Whenever pressed on the tough questions the only answers we seem to get are wisps of smoke.  The Prez and the congress are really spinning this like master weave.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41757
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Massive Costs of "Affordable Health Care" - BOHICA x 50 !!!!!!
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2009, 09:18:48 AM »

I'm really thinking at this point that many of the libs just don't give a fuck.  Whenever pressed on the tough questions the only answers we seem to get are wisps of smoke.  The Prez and the congress are really spinning this like master weave.

Skip - since I am the type of guy who tries to get right to heart of most things, that is why this whole debate and issue has been most upsetting to me. 

The left only offers promises and bogus arguments about what they are doing.  When you ask even the most basic questions, they hide and are utterly incapable of telling us what the hell is the benefit of all this. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41757
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Massive Costs of "Affordable Health Care" - BOHICA x 50 !!!!!!
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2009, 12:19:21 PM »
This is from DU.  Some of the best articles on this HCR farce are from the left. 

________________________ ___________________-

Health Care on the Road to Neo-Feudalism

I believe that if the Senate health care bill passes as Joe Lieberman has demanded it–with no Medicare buy-in or public option–it will be a significant step further on our road to neo-feudalism. As such, I find it far too dangerous to our democracy to pass–even if it gives millions (perhaps unaffordable) subsidies for health care.

20% of your labor belongs to Aetna

Consider, first of all, this fact. The bill, if it became law, would legally require a portion of Americans to pay more than 20% of the fruits of their labor to a private corporation in exchange for 70% of their health care costs.

Consider a family of 4 making $66,150–a family at 300% of the poverty level and therefore, hypothetically, at least, “subsidized.” That family would be expected to pay $6482.70 (in today’s dollars) for premiums–or $540 a month. But that family could be required to pay $7973 out of pocket for copays and so on. So if that family had a significant–but not catastrophic–medical event, it would be asked to pay its insurer almost 22% of its income to cover health care. Several months ago, I showed why this was a recipe for continued medical bankruptcy (though the numbers have changed somewhat). But here’s another way to think about it. Senate Democrats are requiring middle class families to give the proceeds of over a month of their work to a private corporation–one allowed to make 15% or maybe even 25% profit on the proceeds of their labor.

It’s one thing to require a citizen to pay taxes–to pay into the commons. It’s another thing to require taxpayers to pay a private corporation, and to have up to 25% of that go to paying for luxuries like private jets and gyms for the company CEOs.

It’s the same kind of deal peasants made under feudalism: some proportion of their labor in exchange for protection (in this case, from bankruptcy from health problems, though the bill doesn’t actually require the private corporations to deliver that much protection).In this case, the federal government becomes an appendage to do collections for the corporations.

Mind you, not only will citizens be required to pay private corporations. But middle class citizens may be required to pay more to these private corporations than they pay in federal and state taxes. Using these numbers, this middle class family of four will pay roughly 15% in federal, state, and social security taxes. This family will pay around $10,015 for their share of the commons–paying for defense, roads, some policing, and their social safety net share. That’s 15% of their income. They will, at a minimum, be asked to pay 9.8% of their income to the insurance company. And if they have a significant medical event, they’ll pay 22%–far, far more than they’ll pay into the commons. So it’s bad enough that this bill would require citizens to pay a tithe to a corporation. It’s far worse when you consider that some citizens would pay more in their corporate tithe than they would to the commons.



________________________ ____________________

And you guys wonder why I hate Obama and the dems?   

MRDUMPLING

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1190
  • Getbig!
Re: The Massive Costs of "Affordable Health Care" - BOHICA x 50 !!!!!!
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2009, 12:59:09 PM »
That first article was on point!  This is truly a disaster and as we all know is not about healthcare at all.  I really hope Obama only serves one term.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41757
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Massive Costs of "Affordable Health Care" - BOHICA x 50 !!!!!!
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2009, 01:01:32 PM »
That first article was on point!  This is truly a disaster and as we all know is not about healthcare at all.  I really hope Obama only serves one term.

Lets see if Straw, Mons, Kc, Blacken, Al Doggity, Hedge, Benny have anything to say about this. 

shootfighter1

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5674
  • Competitor- NABBA Nationals Overall Champ
Re: The Massive Costs of "Affordable Health Care" - BOHICA x 50 !!!!!!
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2009, 01:50:30 PM »
The more details that come out, the more of a financial disaster this looks to be.

Gingrich, Bloomberg and a female (forgot her name) tore the plan apart on meet the press Sunday AM.  Also criticized all the buyoffs that were allowed to happen. Congress should be ashamed for producing, and then not reading, a 2000+ page bill.  Convenient that the CBO admits they used all data given to them by the democrats who wrote the plan...then discovering medicare cuts were double counted. 
This bill does not reduce healthcare costs, it does force coverage on more Americans (which has positive & negative effects).

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4597
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Re: The Massive Costs of "Affordable Health Care" - BOHICA x 50 !!!!!!
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2009, 02:04:08 PM »
Lets see if Straw, Mons, Kc, Blacken, Al Doggity, Hedge, Benny have anything to say about this. 

Seriously? I've talked about this with you 333.  I'm AGAINST this version of the bill.  I've never been for it and have said so on many occasions.  Just because i don't comment in the 1000000 threads you post about the SAME topic doesn't mean my viewpoint has changed.  SO while you get yourself all lathered up in a fit of rage and post the same thing day after day as if to prove you are totally against it, go ahead.  Rational, sane people prefer to make their stance known and let that be it.  They don't need to post day after day about the same topic because guess what? They've either said they are for or against it already and posting that 1000000 times isn't going to change it.
Abandon every hope...