Life Under Health Care Reform

Time being scarce the last few weeks, I’d originally planned on writing a post of this format about one of the Senate bills, but since the House bill (HR 3962: Affordable Health Care for America Act) is currently the one in the news, I’m focusing on that. The purpose here is to try my best to cut through the hysteria and hype coming from both sides and take a realistic look about what changes we would notice as US citizens if the House health care reform bill becomes law.

The first thing to keep in mind is that nothing much happens until 2013. This could probably called the “keep incumbents from being hurt by this act, especially Obama” provision. Whether the long term effects of the bill are good or bad, change often causes pain and confusion at first, and one of the key ways of getting legislators on board for the bill is to assure them that they’re unlikely to be immediately booted out of office by voters upset about their premiums. This kind of cynicism is hardly unique to this one bill or to either party — it just is what it is. So take the below as a discussion of how thing would be under HR 3962 in the period 5-6 years from now, assuming that is passes and there are no changes made between now and then.

The bill provides several new regulations on insurance companies and on you, which you’ll notice quite clearly.

1) You will be legally required to purchase insurance. If you don’t (and unless you fit criteria for financial hardship as defined in the bill) you will be fined either 2.5% of you income, or the average cost of the plans in the lowest tier of the health insurance exchange. So, if you make 40k/yr, you would be fined $1000. If you make 60k/yr, you would be fined $1500. If you refuse to pay your fines, you’ll be treated exactly like any other tax evader (which means you can potentially be sent to jail.) The Senate bill specifically exempted non-payers from being sent to jail, but the House bill fails to differentiate those who refuse to pay health care fines from those who refuse to pay other taxes, so it is believed that standard tax evasion rules would apply. There will also be penalties placed on employers who do not offer their employees health insurance.

2) Health insurance companies will not be allowed to turn you down for coverage because of any pre-existing conditions you may have, nor will they be allowed to refuse to cover care related to those conditions.

3) Health insurance companies will be required to charge all people the same for the same plan — not charge people with existing health problems more and vastly limits the amount that insurers can charge more to insure older people.

4) Provides subsidies for most American citizens if they are buying individual health insurance, in order to make complying with the individual mandate more affordable.

So what happens to you? Well, if you’ve one of the roughly 80% of Americans who currently health insurance through your employer: nothing much. If your employer wasn’t providing coverage to some of its employees before, and decides to comply with the employer mandate rather than paying the relevant fines, it may seek to recoup the costs of expanding health coverage by increasing the share of your health benefits you have to pay for. Given that the average employer provided family health care plan currently costs about $13,000/yr, it’s likely that there’s a lot of room for your employer to push more of that cost in your direction. (And when it comes to cost savings, most of us would prefer that to layoffs.) In Massachusetts, which passed similar health care reform in the past, employer plan premium have been rising at almost twice the national average rate over the last few years. If the cost to you of your employer’s insurance plan increases to beyond 12% of your annual income (for example: $400/mo for a family making 40k/yr) you would be eligible for subsidies from the government, but otherwise you would be on your own.

If, on the other hand, you currently do not have health insurance or have individual health insurance, you would be greatly affected by the bill. You would become eligible to buy your insurance through the national insurance exchange (and if you didn’t buy coverage, you’d be fined, see above.) Among these plans would be the much discussed “public option”, which would essentially be the same as a private health insurance plan except that it would be administered by a government agency. Adoption of the public options plans is not expected to be high, as the CBO estimates that their premiums will be higher than the average of the private plans in the exchange offering the same benefits.

The plans on the exchange are not necessarily cheap, but you will know pretty clearly what level of coverage you are getting as the plans will have to meet government defined levels of coverage. If you feel daunted by researching what an insurance plan does or does not cover, this might be a major benefit. If not, it might reduce flexibility for you. The average “basic” exchange plan for an individual is expected to cost $5,300 per year, the average for a family of four is expected to be $15,000. In addition to these premiums, you could expect to pay about 2,000 a year in co-pays and deductibles as an individual, or $5,500 as a family. (Obviously, if you get very little care, this would be less. My own family has deductibles similar to the exchange levels on our employer-based health care plan, and our total out of pocket last years was under $1000.)

However, you also receive a scaling set of subsidies in order to offset your costs, depending on how much money you make. Here are a few examples (these are directly from the CBO subsidy analysis):

A single person making $20,600 would pay an annual premium of $900 ($75/mo) and would pay no more than $600 in out of pocket expenses for the year. If he didn’t buy insurance, he’d pay a fine of $515.

A single person making $38,300 would pay an annual premium of $4,300 ($358/mo) and would pay no more than $1,800 in out of pocket expenses for the year. If he didn’t buy insurance, he’d pay a fine of $957.

A family of four making $42,000 would pay an annual premium of $1,900 ($158/mo) and would pay no more than $1,200 in out of pocket expenses for the year. If they didn’t buy insurance, they’d pay a fine of $1050.

A family of four making $66,000 would pay an annual premium of $6,300 ($525/mo) and would pay no more than $3,700 in out of pocket expenses for the year. If they didn’t buy insurance, they’d pay a fine of $1650.

These subsidies are currently designed to scale according to the enrollee’s income, not according to the cost of the plan, so from what I can tell customers would be cushioned initially from any drastic increases in the cost of coverage (such as Maine, Massachusetts and other states passing similar regulations have experienced). However, that might potentially change if the cost of the program spiralled rapidly out of control due to the increased cost of providing insurance under this model.

In this regard, it might almost be a benefit to have the public option in play, as it would make it much harder for people to claim “it’s all because of insurance company profiteering” if the public options premiums continue to run higher than private plan premiums as the CBO projects.

A few useful sources, though not everything in this post is derived from them alone:

The CBO analysis of the House bill.

The official summary of the House bill. (This copy of the file is at the Heritage Foundation, but the actual file is the one the House Democrats put out.)

CBO analysis of subsidies.

5 Responses to Life Under Health Care Reform

  • Is it also true that if you have health insurance, but it does not meet the government standard, you are in the same position as if you had no insurance at all? (i.e. buy ‘approved’ insurance or face a fine)?

  • This is great. I can’t wait until 2013 so that the government can make all of these difficult health care and insurance decisions for me. Life is so much simpler when you don’t have to think or be responsible.

    I wish they would do this with my real estate, car, job, spouse, size of family, diet, entertainment and the most difficult choice of all what religion to believe in.

    Maybe we can all finally be happy and peaceful in 2013 since we won’t have to make these hard choices ourselves, eh, comrades?

    And I was told salvation comes from the Jews – turns out it comes from Kenya by way of Hawaii, Chicago and community organizing.

  • Mmm, sure hope there’s a streamlined process for informing on neighbors and family members who resist collectivization.

    /oh wait that will be me

  • I found the answer to my question here:
    http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/13/get-health-insurance-or-else/#more-14729

    “H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.”

    Note the word ‘acceptable’. This is bound to be a fluid definition, but there is no end to the goodies that can be hung on this tree. Does your plan cover the full range of infertility treatments, even those you find abhorrent? Does your plan cover treatment for substance abuse as generously as it covers treatment for other illnesses? If not, it may not be ‘acceptable’. Nobody knows yet what ‘acceptable’ means, but these mandates have already shown up in Massachusetts and elsewhere.

    I think this needs some more visibility. Many people will think ‘well, I have health insurance, I think it’s foolish not to, so I don’t have a problem with requiring it’. But the word ‘acceptable’ is a loophole that will strangle us, even those of us who now have very good health insurance.

  • Mike,

    I agree that the “acceptible coverage” provisions will be mis-used, in that I strongly believe they’ll become a way for the insurance companies to lobby congress to require people to buy more expensive (more profitable) coverage levels. However, it should be noted at that this point the bill doesn’t just say “acceptable”, it provides a number of definitions of what constitutes “acceptable” coverage having to do with maximum deductibles, maximum out of pocket payments, procedures covered, etc. Changing these would, to my understanding, have to be done by an act passed by congress amending the original bill. This will, I’m sure, happen often, and it will be a bad thing. But it’s not a open-ended regulatory mandate for harassment by enforcers.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .