Baucus "Moderate Dem" Plan Nothing to Get Excited About
As Americans try to figure out what President Obama's "detailed plan" actually means, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey reminds us that the "moderate" Democrat plan proposed by Sen. Max Baucus of Montana ain't nothing to be excited about:
Baucus has proposed that the federal government supply subsidies to needy individuals and families for the purchase of the now-mandated insurance. However, the definition of needy defies both math and common sense. The Baucus plan proposes those subsidies be available to households at up to 300% of the poverty level of income - or about $66,000 per year income.
If that sounds like a pretty good annual household income, you'd be right. In fact, the 2007 median household income in the US was $50,233. Roughly half of all households in America are above this income level, and half below it. It is a solidly middle-class income by definition.
How many people make $66,000 per year or less, and therefore would be eligible for federal health-insurance subsidies? According to the Census Bureau's 2007 survey, 72.1 million of the nation's 116.8 million households earned $65,000 or less. The Baucus plan would make 61.7% of American households dependent on government assistance, far more than half and well on the way to two-thirds.
Morrissey notes that the Baucus plan is tighter than the House plan, which proposes covering households at 400 percent of the poverty line.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I have an idea. They should just give us our money back. I know, crazy.
What is this? Do the Representatives want the children of those at 401% of the poverty line to just die in the streets?
NO ONE SHOULD GO BANKRUPT for health care! Ever! What is with these heartless, lying, corporatist Democrats anyway?
Let's say I make $60k/year ($5,000/mo) as a college professor. My student loans for undergrad and grad school come to $600 month. Doesn't that mean that my income is really more like $52,800/year ($4,400/mo), at least for "need based" garbage? Given that I wouldn't have that income without that brain investment, wouldn't looking to gross salary understate the actual "need" by more than 10%?
Find me a college that doesn't offer insurance to its professors making 60K.
The Baucus plan would make 61.7% of American households dependent on government assistance, far more than half and well on the way to two-thirds.
I suspect that most of the ordinary non-wonk non-politics junkies who support the Obama health care reforms do so because they think they will get some free care, or at least cheaper care, out of it. A bill which makes 39% of the population pay for the health care of the other 61% is a direct appeal to these people.
As a matter of fact, find me a college small enough to avoid the government mandated requirement to offer insurance to its employees.
"Find me a college that doesn't offer insurance to its professors making 60K."
Change the hypothetical to "freelance widget reconstituter".
Lamar,
The main problem is that gross income is a stable platform for calculation. Net income is too subject to manipulation. Why just carve off student loans? You have to eat. You have housing costs. Where does it end?
The SugarFree Health Reform Plan
Legalize high deductible catastrophic plans and interstate commerce of such. Allow roll-over HSAs up to 10% of gross income or 50% of deductible (whichever is higher.) Allow anything spent over the HSA limit for a calendar year to be written off of your net taxes. Anyone with a pre-existing condition that still can't join even a high deductible plan is allowed to enroll in Medicaid. Tax health benefits from employers like regular wages and mandate that employers carry the option of a HSA/catastrophic plan and that workers who join it rather than regular basic plan can take the difference in wages.
Removes some of the perverse incentives, gives incentives to pay out of pocket for routine care to drive down costs, and we don't wreck a massive portion of the economy for the sake of a few hard luck cases.
"Where does it end?"
I was thinking of student loans like a purchase money security interest. Purchase money security interests take priority over other more senior interests because the PMSI directly allows the item to be bought. Student loans directly allow the income to be made. So when you're citing to my super awesome income without any reference to the monthly payments that made that income possible, I view that with suspicion.
I guess I'm getting excited over nothing. Income statistics are still statistics, and therefore worthless as indicators of anything in the real world. I get tired of missing out on government cheese because I make too much money, when my monthly debt service payments result in a rather low actual income. But I guess government doesn't consider sunk costs.
FWIW, clinical-labatory firms aren't thrilled that his proposal would apparently increase taxes/fees on them.
The Baucus plan would make 61.7% of American households dependent on government assistance, far more than half and well on the way to two-thirds.
Which shouldn't be objectionable since the government his plan is mandating that you buy insurance and fining those that don't do so.
If the government is going to mandate insurance than they should subsidize it for most (if not all) people.
Like....no shit
Roughly?????
"The Baucus plan would make 61.7% of American households dependent on government assistance, far more than half and well on the way to two-thirds."
Which shouldn't be objectionable since the government his plan is mandating that you buy insurance and fining those that don't do so.
If the government is going to mandate insurance than they should subsidize it for most (if not all) people.
Subsidies to be paid for by the magical money fairy. Which is to say, China.
Jeezus, EJM... that would certainly encourage small businesses like my clin lab to not grow too big. I imagine that wouldn't work well for Mr. Baucus' plan.
Of course, we'd probably already be put out of business by some other For The Children! tax gesture.
Bitter bastard - that median does not have to be the actual median. If they took the two median numbers from the original sample and averaged them, then "roughly" is correct.
If the government is going to mandate insurance than they should subsidize it for most (if not all) people.
Here's a better idea. Don't mandate shit. How's that one!
"Conversing" with ChicagoTom is like conversing with a radical environmentalist. Any disagreement makes you ipso facto evil.
"Subsidies to be paid for by the magical money fairy."
And rationing!
"Conversing" with ChicagoTom is like conversing with a radical environmentalist. Any disagreement makes you ipso facto evil.
Yeah, but I'm a libertarian. I'm ipso facto evil already, right?
Nice plan, SF. But I would include caps on punitive damages.
If the government is going to mandate insurance than they should subsidize it for most (if not all) people.
Just like auto insurance.
Oh, wait, that doesn't work here. ChiTom, can you ask your block leader what the talking point is supposed to be for this? Mine went kayaking in the Adirondacks for the week.
No, see, they can mandate auto insurance because driving is a privilege, not a right.
Health care, on the other hand is a right, therefore, mandating health insurance is...wait, I keep getting lost.
Sorry. Ignore that false god with a joke handle.
SugarFree, I like your plan.
Which, with a few tweaks, is basically what health insurance was back in ye olde days.
Which shouldn't be objectionable since the government his plan is mandating that you buy insurance and fining those that don't do so.
Let me see if I have this straight: you see no problem for fining and holding someone legally accountable for doing nothing that harms no one.
THAT, my friends, is the definition of pure, fucking evil.
A little bit clearer now....
"...for doing nothing, and furthermore, harming no one."
I agree that some sort of tort reform is necessary. Primairly a requirement that punitive damages are severely limited unless gross negligence (they show up drunk) or actually malevolence can be proven (and those standards are fairly high.)
While my plan passes no libertarian purity test, it is a solution to the "crisis" that trends toward less centralized control.
Ignore that false god with a joke handle.
Darn. I thought I was going to be able to get my hands on the Demiurge finally.
Fat chance. But I do like your health care plan, SF.
"""Oh, wait, that doesn't work here. ChiTom, can you ask your block leader what the talking point is supposed to be for this? Mine went kayaking in the Adirondacks for the week."""
I'm with ChiTom on this one. If the government wants to madate it, they should pick up the tab. Health or auto insurance. If they don't want to pay for it, they shouldn't mandate it.
Once upon a time you had to go to the doctor for a pregnacy test. Now You don't. That is a solution that brought down the cost of determining if you're pregnant. If we are really interested in bring down costs, that's the model to follow.
I'm all for removing providers from some basic care and empowering one's self. Make it such that you have access to inexpensive home labs and remove some drugs from scripts. Not all things need doctor supervision. Make it so you can go to the doctor if feel your condition needs it.
Primairly a requirement that punitive damages are severely limited unless gross negligence (they show up drunk) or actually malevolence can be proven (and those standards are fairly high.)
I continue on my lonely quest that civil justice is about restitution, not punishment.
Gross negligence or actual malevolence by a doctor treating someone should be, and probably already is, a crime. Reckless endangerment and/or assault leap to mind. You want to punish the doc for bad outcomes, file a criminal complaint. You want the doc to make you whole for screwing up, sue him.
"They" be "us", yo. G don't got no scratch.
I'm pretty disappointed in the reporting here.
From Wikipedia:
In 2008, in the United States of America, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was US$11,201; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$21,834.
So the reported number applies to families with 4 people, two of them children. For individuals, the subsidy line is more like $34,000.
As Reason has previously reported, people with more family members tend to have higher household incomes.
It would certainly be interesting to know how many people would actually receive subsidies under this plan.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The+Max+Baucus
"Oh man, I don't know what's going on but I got all these white bumps down there and everything burns, and I think I'm going blind and my private health insurance won't cover it... I think I've totally got The Max Baucus!"
R C Dean
As near as I can tell the major function of punitive damages is to enable the pliantiff's attorney to get his cut. And as far as I have heard they take a pretty big chunk (as much as 2/3 IIANM).
Since all of the damage award goes to the plaintiff, there does need to be something in the award to cover the cost of hiring an attorney since he or she would not have had that expense were it not for the original tort we do need to have something beyond direct damages for an award.
But I think you're right is saying that we shouldn't call it punitive damages. And, yes, it's probably quite reasonabel to put some kind of cap on what an attorney should expect as a fee.
I'm just not entirely sure how to set that cap.