• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health insurers report slams Baucus bill

Ethereal

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,179
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Health insurers report slams Baucus bill - UPI.com

Published: Oct. 12, 2009 at 12:19 PM

WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 (UPI) -- The day before a U.S. Senate panel votes on healthcare reform, an insurance industry report said a family premium in 2019 could cost $4,000 more than thought.

...

The analysis showed the current cost of the average family coverage of about $12,300 could increase to approximately $21,900 in 2019 under current law and to $25,900 if the reforms were implemented.

This analysis shows that the cost of the average single coverage is $4,600 today and could to increase to $8,200 in 2019 under current law and to $9,700 under the proposal.
Click to expand...

First, I would like to say that the article's headline is slightly misleading. Yes, the health insurance industry paid for this report but the report itself was produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of the most prestigious accounting firms in the entire world. The report can be found here:

Healthcare policy in an Obama administration: Delivering on the promise of universal coverage: PricewaterhouseCoopers US

If you plan on attacking the credibility of this report I would ask that you actually address the methodology of PwC instead dismissing it as industry propaganda.
 
Baucus represents a state that has less people than some cities. He is not a fair representation of American interests.

I hate the senate.
 
... and shoot themselves in the foot by making a solid case for the need for a public option. They basically promise to screw us with unending, spiralling out of control, premium hikes.
 
jackalope said:
They basically promise to screw us with unending, spiralling out of control, premium hikes.
Click to expand...

Well, that's probably what you'll get if Baucus's bill becomes law.
 
Ethereal said:
Well, that's probably what you'll get if Baucus's bill becomes law.
Click to expand...

I don't think Baucus bill (as it is now, in committee) will become law.
 
PriceWaterhouseCoopers Backs Away From AHIP

PriceWaterhouseCoopers spends most of its time as a fairly respected consultancy operation. It's entrusted with the audits for ExxonMobile, Ford, IBM, Walt Disney, CBS and many others. It also has a division where outside groups can pay a handsome sum to commission reports on a topic of their choice. It's a neat arrangement: The outside groups know the results they want and the variables and constraints that will ensure that answer. But they don't have the legitimacy to release that report on their own. So they pay a consultancy -- like PWC -- to launder the analysis through their credibility. The consultancy gets a paycheck, the outside group gets a press release, and everyone goes home happy. In Washington, it's a tried-and-true tactic.

But PWC was clearly unprepared for the firestorm that erupted over yesterday's report. And they have their own credibility to protect. Last night, spokesman David Neston sent out an unexpected press release backing away from the analysis, and blaming AHIP for its deficiencies. It reads:

more ...

Ezra Klein - PriceWaterhouseCoopers Backs Away From AHIP
Click to expand...


That's funny .... the report was a hatchet job, and all it did was make a case for a public option. It didn't help the AHIP lobby at all.
 
Here is a statement from PWC themselves on page one of the report.


"The reform packages under consideration have other provisions that we have not included in this analysis. We have not estimated the impact of the new subsidies on the net insurance cost to households. Also, if other provisions in health care reform are successful in lowering costs over the long term, those improvements would offset some of the impacts we have estimated."


http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PWC%20Report%20on%20Costs%20-%20Final.pdf
Click to expand...

A report bought and paid for by the health insurance industry (America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)), which is all fine and dandy, as long as it's recognized as such.

PWC didn't do a complete comprehensive study of the bill, it picked and choose what information to use, what information to ignore and how to use that information, or lack of, to give it's employer what it wanted to hear.
 
BWG said:
Here is a statement from PWC themselves on page one of the report.




A report bought and paid for by the health insurance industry (America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)), which is all fine and dandy, as long as it's recognized as such.

PWC didn't do a complete comprehensive study of the bill, it picked and choose what information to use, what information to ignore and how to use that information, or lack of, to give it's employer what it wanted to hear.
Click to expand...


Yup, yup, that's what happened. :yes:
 
BWG said:
A report bought and paid for by the health insurance industry (America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)), which is all fine and dandy, as long as it's recognized as such.
Click to expand...

What's really funny is that Baucus is also in the pocket of H.I. co's.

So... they trash a bill that had their fingerprints all over it?

Something tells me they don't want a HC bill. ...surprise!
 
Joe1991 said:
What's really funny is that Baucus is also in the pocket of H.I. co's.

So... they trash a bill that had their fingerprints all over it?

Something tells me they don't want a HC bill. ...surprise!
Click to expand...


They want one that makes lots of people buy their product, but doesn't force them to cover stuff, or stop their obscene price hikes.
 
Ethereal said:
Well, that's probably what you'll get if Baucus's bill becomes law.
Click to expand...

It's what we'll get if the bill does NOT become law. We're screwed either way.
 
In the end, one of 2 things will happen:

1) The government will make life and death health care decisions for us.

OR

2) Things will stay as they are, with the health insurance lobby making the life and death decisions for us.

What I want to know is this: What in the hell happened to option 3?

3) The doctor and the patient making the life and death decisions.

Look in the garbage for that one. That is where both the government and the health insurance industry have put it. Health care has become just another racket. The Mafia are envious.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
What I want to know is this: What in the hell happened to option 3?

3) The doctor and the patient making the life and death decisions.
Click to expand...

No, the most that will come of this is you'll need to buy a catastophic policy.

If you're able to pay out of pocket for most of your HC, you'll still be able to.
 
Ethereal said:
If you plan on attacking the credibility of this report I would ask that you actually address the methodology of PwC instead dismissing it as industry propaganda.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, I have to question it based on the fact that the industry could end up loosing a lot under the plan. So they have a vested interest in reaching this result.

The PWC methodology maybe correct, but were the numbers given to them correct?

I would rather see a report from a totally independent agency or organization.

On the other hand, knowing that some kind of bill will be hammered out, I am at the point where I have a wait and see attitude. This whole issue is so confusing, so partisan and so full of misleading statements, examples and emotions that I am not really sure who to believe.

When it comes to big issues, I have learned to have such an attitude, instead of getting so emotionally wrapped up in what amounts to a feeding frenzy. I did that when 911 happened, turned off the tube, the talking heads, the partisan BS and sat back and thought, we're going to get ourselves in a lot of trouble if we don't stop.

.
 
Just Plain Jim said:
I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, I have to question it based on the fact that the industry could end up loosing a lot under the plan. So they have a vested interest in reaching this result.

The PWC methodology maybe correct, but were the numbers given to them correct?

I would rather see a report from a totally independent agency or organization.

On the other hand, knowing that some kind of bill will be hammered out, I am at the point where I have a wait and see attitude. This whole issue is so confusing, so partisan and so full of misleading statements, examples and emotions that I am not really sure who to believe.

When it comes to big issues, I have learned to have such an attitude, instead of getting so emotionally wrapped up in what amounts to a feeding frenzy. I did that when 911 happened, turned off the tube, the talking heads, the partisan BS and sat back and thought, we're going to get ourselves in a lot of trouble if we don't stop.

.
Click to expand...
The government has a vested interest in its plan. So how would you make an educated choice? Who is really independent on this issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom