Senate floor #011: The “hidden tax” of the uninsured
2 December
I have heard the following argument frequently and expect to hear it much more over the next few weeks. Here is Senator Baucus speaking on the Senate floor Monday:
Third, health care reform will work to repeal the hidden tax of more than $1,000 in increased premiums that American families pay each year in order to cover the cost of caring for the uninsured.
I am skeptical about the $1,000 figure, which is from an outside group, but let’s assume it’s accurate.
CBO estimates that the Reid bill would reduce the number of uninsured in 2016 (when the plan is in full effect) from 52 million to 23 million. That’s a 55% reduction in the number of uninsured.
If we’re generous and presume that the so-called “hidden tax” is reduced proportionately, then this indirect premium subsidy would be cut in half, not repealed.
Senator Baucus covered himself by saying “work to repeal” rather than “repeal,” but the impression left with the reader is that the Reid bill would eliminate this cost-shift. Others are not as careful with their language as Senator Baucus is here.
I have written before that I have always been skeptical of the cost shifting argument. Here’s the best response I’ve seen to my skepticism.
Whether or not cost-shifting is real, and whether or not the $1,000 figure is good, the Reid bill would at best cut that figure in half. More importantly, total health spending and costs to the insured will increase if we cover more of the uninsured with taxpayer-subsidized insurance. This sounds almost tautological, but it needs to be said: covering more people costs more money. Yes, there are some indirect savings through less use of emergency and charity care, but those savings are small compared to the gross outlays of subsidizing the purchase of health insurance for many others.
If you’re advocating a policy to subsidize coverage for people who are now uninsured, I hope you’ll argue that the benefits to those uninsured are worth the higher costs to others. Don’t argue that we’ll save money overall, or that it will financially benefit those who are now insured. This one isn’t a free lunch.
Related Posts
(best matches are listed first)- Senate floor #009: Middle class tax increases
- Senate floor #008: The bill doesn’t raise taxes?!?
- Senate floor #001: Leader Reid’s bankruptcy argument
- Senate floor #004: The Senate’s unfinished to do list
- Senate floor #007: Not increasing the deficit isn’t good enough
- Senate floor #002: Nothing is better than something bad
- Senate floor #003: Transparently??
- Senate floor #006: The Mikulski amendment
The intricacies described in the referenced post all make sense but from my own experience a hospital bill comes in the form of a giant number. My explanation of benefits cuts this in at least half and says the result is the negotiated rate which I presume to be provider reimbursement. But what is the purpose of the giant number? As best I can tell nobody pays that much but it is the amount that shows up on the bill for an uninsured patient. Furthermore, doctor's bills look the same way. I've had the experience of being referred to a doctor who didn't accept my insurance. When I asked if I could pay, out of pocket, the amount he was paid by some insurance he did accept the answer was no. Insofar as that would have left me paying twice as much as insurance companies paid I decided I could find a different doctor. The really scary aspect of this phenomenon is that I think at least some providers would consider the giant number my responsibility in event that my insurance company refused to pay.
What is the provider's point in listing such artificial prices that nobody pays? This practice surely doesn't help to give patients an appreciation of what things really cost.
Letter to Senator Ensign of the PSI
I am open to any feedback anyone may have. This is the letter I sent Sen. Ensign just now. http://ensign.senate.gov/public/
Good Day Senator Ensign.
I have read that you are a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation and that the PSI is going to speak with the FDIC over the seizure of Washington Mutual. An Illegal seizure in my opinion. I have followed the WAMU/JPM/FDIC case now for over year. I have read the court documents and files. It makes me sick to see how corrupt our banking system is.
I am requesting that you ask the FDIC a few questions on my behalf. How I wish I could be at that hearing. I would also like to know on what day the hearing will be & if it will be broadcast on CSPAN?
Here is a list of the questions I would like to see asked. I truely hope the Senate ask's them real hardball questions and not alot of fluff.
1. Why did they Seize Wamu shortly after TPG invested 7 billions dollars in Wamu?
2. Why did they Seize on a Thursday, instead of the normal Friday?
3. Was Wamu Solvent at the time of the seizure. If it was not, how come Wamu & JPM both claim that Wamu was solvent? How did the FDIC determine that Wamu was NOT solvent? Based on what?
4.I beleive in Sept. 2008 there was a do not short list. Why was Wamu excluded from the list?
5. Why didnt the FDIC wait a few more weeks and give Wamu a chance with Bank Bailout / Tarp Funds?
6.Where does the FDIC get off on claiming Wamu's 4.4 billion in deposits?
7. Does the FDIC feel that 1.88 billion was fair market value. If they Do, please have them explain this, since JPM(Chase) offered about 8 dollars a share for Wamu a few months earlier.
8. There was a rumor that Citibank
made a Bid for Wamu to the FDIC, What was there bid amount?(Please check with Citibanks CEO to confirm).
The fall of Wamu was a great injustice to America and Wamu's shareholder. Any assistance that you render would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerly
A Wamu shareholder and longtime supporter of your's