Six Months Later…
As expected, there’s quite a bit of media coverage this morning of the September 23 festivities marking six months since the health care bill was signed into law. A couple of key points to keep in mind:
- In his town hall meeting in Virginia yesterday, the President claimed that “We feel pretty confident that over the long term…premiums are going to be lower than they would be otherwise, health care costs are going to be lower than they would be otherwise.” That’s not however what the experts have claimed – the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that individual market premiums will go up by an average $2,100 per family more than they would have had the law not passed, and the Administration’s own actuary found that health costs will rise by an extra $310,800,000,000 over the next ten years as a result of the law.
- While the President said yesterday his health care bill would reduce premiums “over the long term,” he promised immediate relief to struggling families during his presidential campaign. Here’s what campaign advisor Jason Furman – one of the candidates to replace Larry Summers as the head of the President’s National Economic Council – said in July 2008: “We think we could get to $2,500 in savings by the end of the first term, or be very close to it.”
- All the benefits being promoted today may be helpful or worthwhile to some – but because they are passed along to all consumers in the form of higher premium costs, everyone will pay for the benefits, regardless of whether or not individuals need, or want, that coverage. And they are fundamentally inconsistent with the President’s promises – on the campaign and elsewhere – that the law will reduce health costs and lower premiums by $2,500 per family. The Heritage Foundation has a great new one-pager providing a “Dirty Dozen” list of reasons why the health care law will raise premiums – it’s worth a look.
- The President was quoted yesterday as saying Republicans should “look you in the eye” and tell a woman with Hodgkin’s disease that she shouldn’t have insurance. This statement amounts to pure rhetoric on the President’s part, for Republicans have consistently supported high-risk pools for individuals with pre-existing conditions. In fact, the House Republican health care alternative provided MORE funding for high-risk pools than the health care law itself—and didn’t require individuals with pre-existing conditions to go without insurance for six months before becoming eligible for coverage, as the health care law does.
- Conversely, John Goodman writes in this morning’s Wall Street Journal about how enrollment in Medicare Advantage will fall by a projected 7.4 million seniors, according to the Medicare actuary, and how seniors will lose billions of dollars in Medicare Advantage benefits, as outlined in a Heritage Foundation study released last week. Will the President look those seniors in the eye and tell them why they should be forced off their current health plan, or pay hundreds of dollars more a year in out-of-pocket expenses?
A wrap-up of this morning’s coverage of the September 23 events:
- Politico article, “Dems Guess Wrong on Health Care,” about how the majority incorrectly assumed their new law would be popular
- Politico summary of yesterday’s Presidential town hall forum
- New York Times articles on new health care benefits and insurers’ implementation activities
- Wall Street Journal piece on yesterday’s town hall event
- Washington Post reporting on the President’s remarks