Mr. Baucus’s proposal would offer low-cost catastrophic insurance as an option for people 25 and younger. Policy experts say many people in this age group cannot afford comprehensive coverage or see no need for it.
“The idea of a stripped-down benefits package for people who have a good income and choose not to buy health insurance makes a lot of sense,” said Stan Dorn, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute. “But a catastrophic insurance policy does not make sense for lower-income people, because they cannot afford medical care short of catastrophic expenses. A catastrophic policy does not cover routine care.”
If we don't need a public option because 180 million have insurance under their employers, aren't the kids of those 180 million already covered up to age 25? Why do they need help with insurance more than the poor who have none and can't afford it? How many of those under 25 will even face a catastrophic health crisis?
Mr. Baucus’s plan would also expand Medicaid, starting in 2014, to cover millions of low-income people, including many childless adults who never qualified before. Benefits offered to such newly eligible adults would generally be less generous than the comprehensive benefits available to other Medicaid recipients.
Why are they getting stripped-down benefits? And why does it not kick in for five years? I also don't buy this:
“Low-income people without children tend to have extensive health care needs — higher rates of mental illness, physical disability and chronic conditions.”
Nor do I like how Baucus' compromise intends to pay for the cost of providing these limited benefits:
To help pay for his plan, Mr. Baucus would impose fees of $6 billion a year on insurance companies, $4 billion a year on manufacturers of medical devices and $750 million a year on clinical laboratories.
Does anyone think the health insurance companies won't pass these fees on to the consumer by raising premiums -- especially to those with high-end health care plans? The other likelihood is the insurance companies will drop the high-end plans.
I support a public option because I want those who can't afford health insurance to get it. Not just those under 25, but everyone. I know it will mean I pay more for my high-end health insurance plan and I can accept that. But with this compromise, I'll bet my plan either gets withdrawn or becomes so expensive it will become prohibitive. And that's not okay. Not unless my giving it up means there's a big benefit to society like everyone who needs affordable health care gets it.
This compromise means we're all going to suffer for far too little benefit to the greater good. If this is the bill that's agreed upon, I'm going to hope the House rejects it because it has no public option.
Maybe I have it all wrong. I hope I do and I am more than willing for those of you who understand it better to explain why my fears are misplaced. But, I've tried to follow the details and if this is my conclusion, I bet millions of others, regardless of what plan they now have or whether they have no plan at all, are equally clueless as to what it will mean for them.
I put the blame for this on President Obama. Not only has he done a lousy job of explaining what he is willing to accept, he's done a lousy job of explaining the benefits of the bill and the sacrifices it will mean for the rest of us. And now, to top it off, he seems completely focused on passing any bill at all, just so he can say his Administration didn't fail. This compromise is a failure. If it passes, and he starts bragging about how his Administration passed critical health care reform, I'm going to tune him out.
If this is the compromise bill Obama says he supports, I hope it gets rejected in the House. There's plenty of time between now and 2014 to get it right. As with all legislation, a bad bill is worse than no bill at all.
