Skip to comments.
'Reform' at your expense: Health premiums to skyrocket
NY Post ^
| November 17, 2009
| SALLY PIPES
Posted on 11/17/2009 3:28:04 AM PST by Scanian
The health-reform bill that the Senate will soon debate may differ markedly from the one written by Speaker Nancy Pelosi that passed the House -- but both would raise the cost of health care for ordinary Americans.
Such an approach is at odds with the chief goal of reform -- to increase access to care by reducing the cost.
The Empire State is ill-equipped to deal with higher health costs. New York's health system is already one of the most expensive in the country, with total private and public health-care spending of more than $6,500 a person a year. Only two other states and the District of Columbia spend more. Meanwhile, 13.6 percent of New York residents are uninsured.
But Congress seems hell-bent on making life harder for ordinary New Yorkers. Several recent reports confirm this. A recent analysis done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the large insurer Wellpoint and consulting firm Oliver Wyman (using WellPoint's membership data) showed that an average New York family with two children covered by a basic individual-market policy would see its premiums rise 82 percent under Sen. Harry Reid's version of the bill, which includes new excise taxes on insurers, drug companies and medical-device firms, which would all be passed on to consumers.
(It'd be even worse in other states: A 25-year-old man in Kentucky, for instance, would see his monthly premium rise from $61 to $181 -- nearly a threefold jump.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: costs; healthcare; premiums; senatebill
1
posted on
11/17/2009 3:28:04 AM PST
by
Scanian
To: Scanian
KILL THE BILL
2
posted on
11/17/2009 3:31:20 AM PST
by
Doogle
(USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
To: Scanian; FBD
"The health-reform bill that the Senate will soon debate may differ markedly from the one written by Speaker Nancy Pelosi that passed the House -- but both would raise the cost of health care for ordinary Americans...Such an approach is at odds with the chief goal of reform -- to increase access to care by reducing the cost." >doink<
"The Empire State is ill-equipped to deal with higher health costs."
But--but--the Empire State overwhelmingly voted for hope & change!!
Can't stop it now, can you? LOL
3
posted on
11/17/2009 3:34:07 AM PST
by
Landru
(Forget the pebble Grasshopper, just leave.)
To: Scanian
25-year-old man in Kentucky, for instance, would see his monthly premium rise from $61 to $181 -- nearly a threefold jump KILL THE BILL, INDEED
4
posted on
11/17/2009 3:34:49 AM PST
by
jersey117
To: Scanian
I bet this doesn’t include the addition of 15 million invaders to the system. Wait till that kicks in and they bring madre, padre and all their other familia here to partake of the “reforms”.
5
posted on
11/17/2009 3:37:50 AM PST
by
raybbr
(It's going to get a lot worse now that the anchor babies are voting!)
To: Scanian
Cost is not the issue! The paramount issue is its unconstitutionality! Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically nor expressly grant Congress the power to regulate health care. Therefore any federal version is unconstitutional! This is the point people should be impressing upon their politicians!
6
posted on
11/17/2009 3:38:11 AM PST
by
Man50D
(Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
To: Scanian
RomneyCare more than doubled the cost of a BlueCross policy for my grandson, from $150/month to $360. The original $150/month covered any child in the state from birth to 18, regardless of pre-existing conditions.
Be afraid.
7
posted on
11/17/2009 3:39:02 AM PST
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(Only in America does being convicted of a capital crime increase your life expectancy.)
To: jersey117
“25-year-old man in Kentucky, for instance, would see his monthly premium rise from $61 to $181 — nearly a threefold jump”
This is typical social engineering BS from politicians with limited knowledge but big egos. A 25 year old needs catastrophic coverage, in case he/she breaks their leg skiing, or God forbid winds up with Hodgkin's or another major illness that can strike at that age. On the other hand, an annual visit to a physician at that age is certainly enough, maybe more than enough. That said, a 25 year old could pay out of pocket for an annual physician visit for a heck of a lot less money than $181/month. This is nothing more than taking from one group to cover another, i.e. wealth redistribution.
To: Man50D
At this point, in my mind the question should be about the consequences to the overall economy and jobs. This bill is a job killer of the first degree. Business will be hit with a +5% excise tax on top of an elimination of the Bush tax cuts next year. Want to talk about joblessness? Businesses will be shedding jobs like a Collie sheds hair in the spring and all we'll hear about is “corporate greed” at which point Bozo will hop on a Air Force One to some far away place to apologize for another American transgression. Augh!!!
9
posted on
11/17/2009 4:24:48 AM PST
by
RU88
(Bow to no man)
To: Man50D
You “get it”.
Sadly, for our government school educated population an appeal to the Constitution is meaningless.
To: socialismisinsidious
Socialized Medicine aka Universal Health Care daily digest PING LIST
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this daily digest ping list (one ping per day of links to pertinent articles).
11
posted on
11/17/2009 7:52:13 AM PST
by
socialismisinsidious
( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
To: Landru
The bill was never about reducing cost. It’s a power grab, a way for them to raise taxes, steal our money and redistribute to others.
12
posted on
11/17/2009 9:52:40 AM PST
by
mojitojoe
(“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” - Vladimir Lenin)
To: Scanian
To: Doogle
Absolutely. If implemented, this bill would be a fiscal disaster and would end up costing at least 50% more than the budgeted cost. It would also overload the health care system, which is not prepared to cope with a sudden huge increase in demand for medical services. This bill is incredibly expensive and it would make a complete mess out of our health care system. It would dramatically increase health insurance costs for individuals and businesses, which firstly is unfair to individuals and business people, and secondly would hurt consumer spending and further increase mortgage foreclosures. The whole thing is a terrible idea written by economically ignorant leftists. The senate should kill this entire health care "reform" proposal and drop it permanently from the legislative agenda.
14
posted on
11/17/2009 11:14:47 AM PST
by
your local physicist
(If the Canadians and Brazilians can drill for oil off their Atlantic coast, why can't we?)
To: your local physicist
...every time I hear someone from the GOP say that line..."something has to be done", it makes my skin crawl.. They all just brush aside tort reform,fraud,and interstate trade.....that alone would take care of the so-called uncared for....and LOWER THE COST FOR EVERYONE....just KILL THE BILL
15
posted on
11/17/2009 11:20:50 AM PST
by
Doogle
(USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
To: mojitojoe
"The bill was never about reducing cost. Its a power grab, a way for them to raise taxes, steal our money and redistribute to others."Nothing wrong with your reasoning, my friend. LOL
Lame attempt to be facetiousness on my part. ;^)
16
posted on
11/17/2009 11:59:10 AM PST
by
Landru
(Forget the pebble Grasshopper, just leave.)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson