Posts Tagged ‘Could’

Corker Says Senate Finance Health Care Bill Could Raise Some Premiums As Much As 60%

Sunday, April 3rd, 2011

Corker Says Senate Finance Health Care Bill Could Raise Some Premiums As Much As 60%

Speaking at town hall meeting in Bledsoe County today, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said the Senate Finance Committee’s health care bill could raise the cost of health insurance for some Tennesseans by as much as 60 percent. Earlier in the day, Corker shared a similar message at stops in Warren and Van Buren counties.

A study by Oliver Wyman, and sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of America, shows an expected 60 percent increase in average claims over five years when the proposed reforms are fully implemented. Tennessee is among several states that would experience large rate increases under the health insurance reforms included in the Senate Finance proposal.

“The mission of Congress and the Obama administration should be the same as a doctor treating a patient: DO NO HARM, so I’m totally bewildered when I see that a bill will cost tax payers almost a trillion dollars and actually result in HIGHER health care costs for millions of Tennesseans,” said Corker. “There’s strong evidence that the Senate Finance Committee bill – which most believe is the basis for a final health reform product – would raise premiums by 60 percent.”

Page 13 of the Wyman report indicates “cluster 4” states, including Tennessee, will see a 60 percent expected increase in average claims per member. According to data based on the report, current average premiums in Tennessee would increase by ,619 for individuals and ,727 for families under reforms in the Finance bill.

Corker, who spent the majority of his time on health insurance issues as Tennessee commissioner of finance in 1995-96, voiced his strong support for responsible health care reform, including a permanent solution to the way doctors are reimbursed for treating Medicare patients, but said he was fervently opposed to S. 1776, a two-page bill that would have added 6.9 billion to the deficit as a quid pro quo to buy the American Medical Association’s support of health care reform. A procedural vote to move forward with formal consideration of S. 1776 failed 43-57 last Wednesday, October 21.

“While I strongly believe in health care reform that will stand the test of time, Americans should recognize last week’s vote as the first test of the health care debate, a test that the Obama administration and Democratic leaders flunked. Right out of the gate they offered a two-page bill that adds 6.9 billion to our deficit as a quid pro quo to buy the American Medical Association’s support of health care reform. Fortunately, 13 of my Democratic colleagues recognized what a sinister piece of legislation this was and voted against it.

“If this first vote is a sign of what’s to come, all Americans should keep their antennas up and continue to watch very closely as the health care debate unfolds.”

“No one has voiced stronger support for a permanent solution to the ‘SGR’ or ‘doc fix’ issue that has left every Congress since 2002 scrambling to prevent drastic pay cuts to physicians who treat Medicare patients, and I have continually expressed frustration that the health care reform bills before Congress ignore the problem and continue to kick the can down the road. It’s irresponsible and our seniors, and the doctors who care for them, deserve better,” said Corker.

“However, I find this bill, which eliminates one payment model without replacing it with another and adds 6.9 billion to the debt piling on future generations, to be one of the most sinister, selfish and short-sighted solutions I have seen in my two years and 10 months in Washington.

“I’m also bewildered that President Obama continues to say, so disingenuously, that health care reform won’t add ‘one penny’ to our deficit, when this provision alone will add 6.9 billion.”

“In addition to pushing off problems to another Congress and debt to future generations, the health care reform bill pushes a huge unfunded mandate off to states,” continued Corker. “For example, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen estimates that the Senate Finance Committee’s bill would cost Tennessee 5 million over the first five years in Medicaid expansion, a huge unfunded mandate that creates a very difficult situation for our state. My guess is that most other states would face a similarly painful situation if these costs are passed down.

“The bill also seeks to take 4 billion away from Medicare, which is predicted to be insolvent by 2017, and leverages it to create a new entitlement program rather than using it to make Medicare more solvent. I honestly don’t know how Congress has moved from broad, bipartisan concern over Medicare’s -40 trillion in unfunded liabilities – liabilities that threaten our country’s financial stability – to now embracing a proposal that would take cuts made to Medicare and use them to leverage a new program to cover the uninsured, rather than putting the funds toward extending the life of Medicare.

“Like most Americans, I want to see responsible health care reform but paying for it by sending unfunded mandates to states, taking money from Medicare to fund new federal entitlements, and passing off costs to future generations does not pass the common sense test.

“The people who came before us are often called the Greatest Generation because of their military efforts overseas and sacrifices here at home. If the political leadership in this country continues to throw future generations under the bus to score a political victory, we will be known as the Selfish Generation, and the wrath of the American people is going to come upon us, and it should.”

Quoting & Saving just got easier…EasyToInsureME Health Insurance Quotes… Quote all carriers in seconds

Tennessee Health Insurance
Kentucky Health Insurance


Article from articlesbase.com

Health-care bill passed 60-39 could mirror Canadian style rationing system

Monday, March 28th, 2011

Health-care bill passed 60-39 could mirror Canadian style rationing system

The health-care bill, which is President Obama’s top domestic priority, would extend insurance to about 30 million people who now lack it, expand the reach of Medicaid for the poor, and impose new rules on health insurance companies. It would cost about 1 billion over 10 years, but raise more than that in new taxes and fees and cuts in Medicare. Democrats win the vote 60-39 over Republican objections.

With the economy struggling to break the chains of a job-destroying recession. Under Obama-care, Americans will be forced to buy government-approved health insurance and anyone earning a middle class wage will have to pay for it out of their own pocket. Federal subsidies will only be provided for people who are not offered coverage by their employer and earn below the 400 percent poverty level. Families whose employers drop their plan will be forced to buy it on their own – at a cost of over ,000 dollars a year. “The Senate health care bill gives employers two powerful incentives to stop offering health insurance coverage to their workers,” writes Terry Jeffrey

“First, if an employer does offer coverage, its lower-wage workers will lose the federal insurance subsidy they would otherwise get.
Secondly, if an employer does not offer coverage, the 0-per-worker fine it faces will be far less than the premiums it would pay if it did offer coverage.”

Families struggling in this deep recession who earn a combined total greater than ,200 and don’t have their health care covered by their employer will be hit with a mandatory annual fee of about ,000 according to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the final Senate health-care bill.

There is nothing voluntary about Obama’s health-care mandate:

The Senate has dismissed concerns over the individual insurance mandate and the tax penalty imposed on those who don’t meet that requirement. If you refuse to pay the penalty or you refuse to provide any information on your health-care status on your tax return, you will face the prospect of being audited by the Internal Revenue Service. This is supposedly a “voluntary mandate” and the IRS can’t do anything against you if you refuse to pay the penalty. They claim that because page 340 (A) and (B) of the bill waives criminal prosecution of taxpayers and says that no liens or levies can be filed on the taxpayer’s property. That claim is wrong.

Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) itself made clear that the financing of health-care reform is based in substantial part on generating 7 billion in “penalty payments” from individual taxpayers and employers.

The IRS, which is known for its habit of disregarding court decisions that disagree with its interpretations of the law, may use audits and the ability to find problems in a taxpayer’s finances in areas totally unrelated to the health care mandate to force compliance with the mandate and coerce payment of the tax penalty imposed by Reid’s bill. according to The Heritage Foundation, The very idea of using the taxing powers of the state to force compliance with this law is one that should shock the conscience of everyone, even those who support “reforming” our health care system.Obama’s answer to the question posed by George Stephanopoulos
in an interview,  “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money [to buy insurance], fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?’’

“George,’’ chided Obama, “the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary . . . indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now.’’

Merriam-Webster’s definition of “tax’’ – “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.’’

One place to look to see what the universal coverage would do is the state of Massachusetts, about 200,000 state taxpayers remained uninsured in the beginning year of 2008, it hasn’t made insurance more affordable, Massachusetts has the highest health insurance premiums in the nation. It rose by 7.4 percent in 2007, 8-12 percent in 2008 and will expect to rise 9 percent this year who knows what 2010 will bring, according to Jeff Jacoby who’s article entitled Mandatory insurance: Yes, it’s a tax, addresses the promise Obama’s made not to raise taxes on any American family earning less than 0,000 a year, contradicts that by supporting legislation that would force every American to carry health insurance or pay a hefty penalty to the IRS.

Some of the taxes that will be imposed on the public under the new health-care bill that has people taken back with concern: according to H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Section 1501 – Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage – Individuals will be required to maintain health insurance. Those that do not will be assessed an annual tax penalty of 0. The tax penalty is scheduled to escalate in subsequent years. Consequently, Massachusetts residents that do not maintain health insurance will be assessed a tax at both the state and federal level.

Section 9001 – Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage – This provision levies an excise tax of 40 percent for any health coverage plan that is costs over ,500 per year for single coverage and ,000 per year for family coverage. Since this was protested vigorously by unions and public employees, the Senate caved and granted a massive concession. The tax is not levied on the individual receiving the tax free benefit, but is levied on the insurance company or plan administrators that provide the employee the benefit. How absurd is that?

Section 9008 – Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers – This piece of the legislation imposes a .3 billion excise tax on the pharmaceutical industry. The tax is allocated across the industry and is based on market share, not on income. This tax starts immediately and is non-deductible for the corporation being taxed. These companies will still be required to pay their federal income taxes.

Section 9009 – Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers – This section imposes a billion excise tax on the medical device industry. The fee is allocated across the industry based on market share, not on income. This tax starts immediately and is non-deductible for the corporation being taxed.

Section 9010 – Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers – Another excise tax. This one is assessed on the health insurance industry in the amount of .7 billion taxed out and is also based on market share. How can the imposition of billion in excise taxes (section 9008, 9009 and 9010) on the health care industry reduce costs to consumers? Does anyone else suspect these companies will have to pass these costs over to consumers?

Section 9013 – Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses – For those incurring significant medical costs, your ability to deduct these expenses will be decreased. This legislation increases the adjusted gross income threshold for claiming an itemized deduction from 7.5 percent to 10 percent.

Section 9015 – Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers – This increases the Medicare tax on wages by 0.50 percent on individuals making in excess of 0,000 and married couples making over 0,000. This will be effective starting January 1, 2013. (As a side note, individual income taxes are already scheduled to increase in 2011, with the highest rate already increasing by 4.6 percent. This will be in addition to the tax increase as outlined here in Section 9015.)

“Average premiums per policy in the non-group market in 2016 would be roughly ,800 for single policies and ,200 for family policies under the proposal,” according to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO).

Quoting & Saving just got easier…Easy To Insure ME Health Insurance Quotes… Quote all carriers in seconds

Health insurance
Health insurance quotes


Article from articlesbase.com

4 Biggest Mistakes You Could Make When Purchasing Health Insurance

Saturday, March 5th, 2011

4 Biggest Mistakes You Could Make When Purchasing Health Insurance

Are you soon heading out looking to purchase health insurance? Well, if that is the case, you will do well to know that the health insurance purchase decision is a major one – and definitely not one you should take lightly.

This assertion comes from an observation of the nasty experiences that people who purchase health insurance without understanding the enormity of the purchase decision tend to go through. In a nutshell, the experiences of those people range from what can be termed as frustration to what can be termed as major regret. Looking through their often bitter experiences, it tends to turn out that they find themselves in such predicaments after having made fundamental mistakes when purchasing the health insurance. So we have collated and researched on those mistakes, and now we present these five mistakes that you should aim never to make when purchasing health insurance. This we do in the hope that you will take heed and save yourself from the frustration a poor health insurance purchase could drive you into:

1. Purchasing health insurance from financially weak insurers: it is not for nothing that people considering buying health insurance are advised to check out the financial health of the insurers they are considering buying the policy from. It is worth noting that your health insurance cover is as good as the financial strength of the company providing it. Yes, there are mechanisms, in most jurisdictions, to protect the interests of the clients in the event of a health insurer going down. But more often than not, it tends to take a while before these mechanisms can kick in – during which time you would be virtually uncovered. Purchase health insurance from financially strong insurers only.

2. Purchasing health insurance from insurers who are known to ‘cut corners:’ the relationship between a health insurance provider and their client is one that is largely built on trust. It therefore becomes necessary to ensure that you only purchase health insurance from insurers who have good reputations; not insurers who are known to cut corners and shift goalposts against their clients, especially when it comes to claims times. Check out what the previous client experiences with the various insurers you consider buying health insurance from have been like.

3. Purchasing the cheapest health insurance cover you can get, without checking coverage keenly: remember, in order to make the cheap pricing a possibility, some major compromises in terms of coverage have to be made. While it is advisable for you to go for the most affordable health insurance cover you can get, you should also look at it keenly to establish what exactly you will be getting in it. Sometimes, you find cheap health insurance policies that have so much stripped out of them (in a bid to make them affordable) that they are pretty much useless to the people who buy them.

4. Purchasing health insurance without reading the contract well: it is important to note that when purchasing health insurance, what you buy is essentially the contract. This makes it essential for you to look at the health insurance contract keenly (including in the ‘fine print section’), and make an effort to understand the clauses in it and their full implications. In things like these, the devil is always in the details. But more important than the reading is having the willpower to back out of what turns out to be a bad deal. It often happens that people indeed read their health insurance contracts, notice the badness of the deals -and then find it hard to back so as not to ‘upset’ the often suave salesmen. Don’t fall for this trap. If a close reading of the health insurance contract reveals that it is a bad deal, back out of it immediately.

Learn how to get affordable California Health Insurance at http://www.squidoo.com/Compare-California-health-insurance


Article from articlesbase.com