I just watched the adress to congress and did some math on what Obama said. He stated that the bill would no be taxpayer funded and would rely on premiums collected.He also stated that only 5 percent would sign up for it. I just looked up the census bureau and it states as of july2008 the total population is304,050,000 plus. so lets just round a bit. call it 300,000,000.five percent of this is 15,000,000.His budget price tag is 900,000,000,000 over ten years.This averages to 90,000,000,000 per year.To rely on premiums to fund the bill 15,000,000 people would have to come up with 90,000,000,000 in premiums per year.The amount per person is $6000 a year.Which is $500 per month.So my question is.Are you paying more or less for your health premiums.
public option premiums
- Thread starter spanx
- Start date
Per person? Hard to say- It's a family of three on my wife's insurance, and it's a little pricey, but considering my wife's policy is basically paid for by the company and the rest of the family's is not, I would say no based on our pre-tax cost. Including her company's cost? I wouldn't know. It's probably $50 a head less expensive than health care through my company, which we do not take. Those numbers are several years old, so it's probably more now. I will say that if this is his plan for "affordable" health insurance, it sure as hell won't be for me at $1500/ month for my family, assuming we encountered circumstances requiring its use. That's around 30%-50% of our take home.
I will say I have almost no idea of specific details about any of the plans on the table, so I'm sorry if I got something wrong.
I will say I have almost no idea of specific details about any of the plans on the table, so I'm sorry if I got something wrong.
My wife was paying closer to $600 per month with a $5000 deductible. Now her medicare premium is less than $300 per quarter.
I might add that I'm also covered under medicare but have been in the VA system for quite a few years. I paid those premiums quite some time ago and am totally paid in full.
I might add that I'm also covered under medicare but have been in the VA system for quite a few years. I paid those premiums quite some time ago and am totally paid in full.
Last edited:
At most, it would be 5% of the uninsured. Most people wouldn't even be eligible for the public option which would be one option, along with private insurance policies under an exchange system. Under Obama's plan, every American would not have access to the exchanges. Only small businesses, the self-employed, the unemployed, and the uninsured would have that right. The same for people who qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or VA, etc. The best estimates are that there are about 40 million people who are uninsured. Most of those would, presumably, opt for a private insurer in the exchange system that would be set up if legislation passes.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #5
Maybe I misunderstood his statement.If you are correct then lets do the numbers again.5%of 40,000,000 is 2,000,000.Still using the 90,000,000,000 per yr est.price.the price per person per yr would be 45,000 dollars which is 3,750 per person per month.This would be outrageous amount of waste.
but the $900 billion cost represents not just the cost of the public option but represents: 1. Expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor 2. Subsidizing the cost of insurance (private) for the uninsured 3. Setting up exchanges (marketplaces for private insurers to offer plans to the uninsured)
As to how it would be paid for? In general: streamlining medicaid and medicare (specifically the medicare advantage plans), higher taxes for the wealthy (earnings of more than $1 million per year), require businesses that don't offer health insurance to pay a penalty (it would exempt small businesses with payrolls of less than $250,000 per year - some want to raise this exemption higher).
As to how it would be paid for? In general: streamlining medicaid and medicare (specifically the medicare advantage plans), higher taxes for the wealthy (earnings of more than $1 million per year), require businesses that don't offer health insurance to pay a penalty (it would exempt small businesses with payrolls of less than $250,000 per year - some want to raise this exemption higher).
To answer your question: Less.
My wife is on her own employee insurance plan and my son and I are on mine. In toto, we pay less than $500 per month.
However, thanks to the information I gathered from the speech tonight, I now know I am not required to drop my insurance plan... But if my employer opts to pay the taxes (8% of payroll) rather than the insurance benefits plan for employees, I'll be up a crick.
- Thread starter
- #8
I though that the option was designed to give insurance to lower income individuals.If this is true then why would medicaid need to be expanded?Why subsidize large insurance companies if you have a public ins.It's tax dollars taken by the government why not have it used exclusively for the public option?The exchanges should not be paid for by the government it should be left up to the private companies.The idea behind it is solid but not funded by tax dollars when their profits are in the billions.Streamlining medicare would cut alot of waste,but it will also cut alot of jobs.Hopefully on the administrative level and not on the healthcare professional level.More taxes on the wealthy? How would the average person feel about paying the same base percentages as the wealthy.I don't Think that raising the taxes of the successful to pay for a program they can't use is fair.Do you?Iwould like to ask a favor as you are more knowelagable than I.Can you tell me the name of a big corperation that does not insure or even offer insurance to its employees.
Due to my own ignorance, I'll need further explanation of the the Federal Government side... When I think of government employees, I think of servicemen, post office workers, FBI, etc... What government employees do not benefit from some type of heathcare plan?
If part of this bill is going to provide funds to medicare, I would hope that would be to stabilize its financial situation rather than expand a program that is operating at an increasing annual operating loss. Like social security (only worse), it will be bankrupt before long. In fact, I have a visual image to help convey the financial situation of medicare:
Why are we talking about new government options in health care, when the currently available options are not being operated in a fiscally sound manner? It's nuts.
Why are we talking about new government options in health care, when the currently available options are not being operated in a fiscally sound manner? It's nuts.
Thanks for the reminder Rob... When I was in college, I had a part-time government job working at the local VA hospital. Not only did I get crappy pay (5 bucks an hour), I was not offered benefits.
Very few part-time jobs offer benefits.
That's pretty sucky isn't it. Good thing our government is about to reform heathcare so that every soul in the country of America will have healthcare benefits (except for Illegal aliens of course, as confirmed today).
If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until its free. Remember that anytime the government gets involved in anything its going to cost big time in the end. 
Yes it is. When I was in college I worked at a couple of places that offered benefits for part-timers but only for those who worked 25+ hours a week. They would hire part-timers almost exclusively, but would keep the hours between 20-24 to avoid paying benefits.
Of course, if you're Joe Wilson (R-SC) you won't agree... which brings us to that "respect" thing that was being discussed in that other thread.
I missed what Joe Wilson said. Why would I care what Joe Wilson said when President Obama told the world today that illegal aliens would most deffinitely not be covered by any healthcare plan.
While there are certainly reforms that need to take place in Medicare, it remains a more efficient system than the private insurers. Private insurers were posting profits in the worst times of the recession back in '08, while at the same time bankrupting their clientele and running down our health care system to being completely and entirely unsustainable. Without major changes to the system it is literally a matter of years before the entire middle class will be unable to afford health insurance. The only reason to even have private insurance companies is to keep health costs down for members, a task they have failed at miserably.If part of this bill is going to provide funds to medicare, I would hope that would be to stabilize its financial situation rather than expand a program that is operating at an increasing annual operating loss. Like social security (only worse), it will be bankrupt before long. In fact, I have a visual image to help convey the financial situation of medicare:
Why are we talking about new government options in health care, when the currently available options are not being operated in a fiscally sound manner? It's nuts.
see here, slide 44
If they can't keep costs down, why do they exist? Well, now they won't. Not in their current form, anyway.
This is a non-argument strawman. Other health care systems with fully socialized government employed doctors and hospitals are less expensive than our system, boast better national health care statistics, and their citizens are more satisfied with their system than we our with ours. Not that systems like the NHS are even comparable to the kinds of reforms the administration is proposing. We're not nationalizing health care, we're reforming insurance. Our system is going to be far more comparable to the systems of German and Switzerland, both of which utilized free-market doctors, hospitals, and insurers, all of which are heavily regulated by the government. They too boast better health statistics, higher satisfaction, they have more choices in providers than US residents have, all at a significantly lower cost.If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until its free. Remember that anytime the government gets involved in anything its going to cost big time in the end.
That may well be true, but if the programs is losing money, something needs to happen regardless of its relative level of efficiency, and this is the perfect time to address the issue. After reading up on this further, it seems the problem with medicare is essentially... skyrocketing health care costs! If Obama's proposed streamlining of the health care system to introduce efficiencies that do not currenty exist solves the medicare problem along with the health insurance question, that is AWESOME. But if the efficiencies being introduced are insufficient to bring medicare back into the black, I think we should be proactive and get working on that. It will be an unpleasant fight when it inevitably occurs- why not involve it in the current wrestling match now? Two messy issues solved for the hassle of one!
I am ALL FOR health care reform. Since real, substantive change out of our government is very difficult to achieve, and this looks like the first real change in a while, let's get it as right as we can the first time- I don't think we can afford to leave things like this hanging and hope that health care reform will solve medicare's problems. If it does, great. If it might not, let's tackle this now. An ounce of prevention is a worth a pound of cure. Something only a few of the various health care companies I have had over the years understand.
Obviously, the President had the same problems with mathematics as he does with language.
I'm a little weary of hearing about the cost of this program. The US spends more per year on military spending than the rest of the world combined (by over $100 billion). The next highest spender is China with $65 billion...
I'm assuming that we might be able to pull out of a few areas, and find a way to spend those dollars differently. FWIW, I love our military and appreciate them very much. I just think that we could spend our dollars differently in some areas. Just saying.
EDIT: I looked up these numbers again, and they are old. The newest number I found said we accounted for 48% of all the world's military spending... The point is still valid IMO
I'm assuming that we might be able to pull out of a few areas, and find a way to spend those dollars differently. FWIW, I love our military and appreciate them very much. I just think that we could spend our dollars differently in some areas. Just saying.
EDIT: I looked up these numbers again, and they are old. The newest number I found said we accounted for 48% of all the world's military spending... The point is still valid IMO
Last edited:
