Why Do Blue Dogs Want You and Me to Pay Three Times More Than They Do for Health Care?

The Blue Dog negotiating list for health reform has been floating around for days now. Here's the list:

--Effectively bend the cost curve
-- Realign incentives to reward high quality, efficient health care; include value-based purchasing, value index, innovation center for Medicare and Medicaid, and other delivery system reforms
--Increase small business exemption and adjust for inflation
--Address end-of-life care
--Adjust the value and cost of subsidy levels
-- Provide affordability credits on a sliding scale from 100-300 percent FPL
-- Public option must negotiate rates with providers, provide greater clarity on opt out, compete on a level playing field, and be available as a fallback
--Establish consumer-driven, state-based co-ops
--Create state-based exchanges with a federal fallback
--Maintain current state-federal partnership with Medicaid, while implementing reforms that increase its value and effectiveness

I've emphasized the two in the middle, because those are the two we hear are highest on the Blue Dog list right now. They are also the ones that cut to the heart of health reform. In short, the Blue Dogs want to keep health care unaffordable for you and your family.

Right now, the House bill protects families up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). The Blue Dogs want to cut that back to 300%. That would cut millions of people out and leave them on their own, paying full price for health care.

What's full price?

The average family health care plan costs $12,680 per year, which comes out to $1,056 per month. For someone making 350% FPL, that's 16% of their income going to health care costs. Meanwhile, Blue Dogs -- who get health care paid for by you and me through the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan -- pay an average of just $357 per month [pdf] for health care, or $4,284 per year. They pay three times less, and they make $174,000 per year.

That's just not fair, and more importantly, Blue Dogs want to weaken the main goal of health care reform -- to make it truly affordable to families.

Instead of asking families to pay huge portions of their income for health care costs, they should agree with leaders in the House and ask those in our society who can most afford it -- those families making over $350,000 per year -- to chip in their fair share by starting to roll back the tax breaks the wealthy got under George Bush.

To do any less would be to deny the crisis going on Blue Dog districts, where health care is unaffordable and uninsurance rates are sky high. It would be a dereliction of duty, it would keep health care out of reach for millions of families, and it would be shockingly unfair.

(also posted at the NOW! blog)

I'm proud to work for Health Care for America Now

Follow Jason Rosenbaum on Twitter: www.twitter.com/j_ro

Comments

[Jimmy1920]

There are two tests for successful health care reform in my book. When someone loses their job today, will they have seamless health care coverage? The model for that system already exists in the Taft-Hartely multi-employer plans. Ssomeone who doesn't know how he or she will make their next mortgage payment, isn't interested in tax credits or for some one to determine if they meet an income criteria for a subsidy.
The second test will be how reform affects the marginally employed: the young, the new business entrepreneur, the part time and part year workers, the free lancers. As you write, paying the full cost of insurance is not an option for them.
http://the­healthcare­maze.us

[1will]

The country is broke. We are borrowing 46 cents for every dollar that we spend. The world is doubting our ability to pay our debts, expecting high inflation and calling for an end to the US Dollar as their reserve currency. Social Security and Medicare are underfunded.
We do not have the money to pay for yet another never ending entitlement program or vote buying scheme.
By the way, despite Obama's lies we did not get into this economic mess because of healthcare and reforming our healthcare will not get us out of it.

[hippynanainblingland]

"We do not have the money to pay for yet another never ending entitlement program or vote buying scheme."

Oh, yes, we do! Just deflate the Pentagon balloon!

[maxfax]

They want us to pay more so insurance companies can continue to fund blue dogs' campaigns.

[macohmz]

The Blue Dogs rank right there with bribe-taking Republicans and bicycle-seat sniffers. I called the Washington office of one these "Blue Dogs" and accused them of using fiscal conservatism to elicit bribes from Big Insurance and Big Pharma. I was assured that wasn't the case. That they were sincere. Bull dookey! There's more sincerity in my big toe than a whole kennel of Blue Dogs.

[Rog49Thomas]

"Why Do Blue Dogs Want You and Me to Pay Three Times More Than They Do for Health Care?"

To protect our Republic from various evils including, socialism, chronic halitosis, and bad posture etc.

[noneIn2008]

Maybe they are more worried about the seniors in there districts finding out about the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. The senior vote at high levels and will be very unhappy.

[wilsonveteran]

Let me talk to the sheep on this blog again. This is not about health care it is about Government growth and control. This program will cost more than they say, government programs always do. They can then tax you more to pay for it because it is for the good of the people. They will already tax alcohol and sugar drinks and yes tobacco because it is for the good of the people. Next you will be taxed on what you weigh because if you weigh to much you may have more health problems because it is good for the people. This bill will set quotas on medical students for minorities.Read the bill. Your qualifications will not always take preferrence it will be the color of your skin because it is for the good of the people. To cut cost they will cut what doctors and nurses make for the good of the people. They will need to ration care to the elderly because it will be good for the people.
Cap and Trade is also not about global warming. This is also about the growth of our government. The largest tax ever to be placed on the American people regardless of their income because it is good for the people. Beware of any government telling you its good for the people what it is good for is those in government and those that got them there.

[justoverit333]

They need to straighten out the Medicare and Medicaid mess.
A lot of waste and people taking advantage.

[noneIn2008]

The bill plans to cut $600 million from Medicare and Medicaid.

[schatsie]

600 million from programs that cost almost a trillion is a nothing...

[iMissMollyIvins]

The answer to your question is; campaign contributions from corporate interests.

[tedbear]

You are correct. If it walks like a dog, talks like and dog, it is a Republican dog in Democrat clothing!

[Bernique]

Something very interesting to give the Blue Dogs a way out of their, hmm, impasse. It's easy and it's brilliant.--

by Thom Hartmann

http://www.thomhartmann.com

"Roll back the Reagan tax cuts!

While there's much discussion about letting the Bush tax cuts expire, if we really want our country to recover its financial footing we must do something altogether different. We need to roll back the Reagan tax cuts that took the top marginal rate from above 70% down into the 30% range.

First, though, we have to help Americans realize that "no new taxes" is a mantra that is meaningful to the very rich, but largely irrelevant to average working people.

Only when the current generation re-learns the economic and tax lessons ... [learned] ... in the 30s through the 60s, will this become politically possible. Americans need to learn what Europeans know about taxes - they only matter to the rich.

Thus today the uberrich are spending hundreds of millions to make sure words like "burden" are always associated with the word "tax," and to convince average working people that they should [not vote for] ... any politicians who are willing to raise taxes on the rich.

We have a lot of education to do...and as long as the Right Wing Machine of the uberrich continues to "lose" (e.g. "invest") millions of dollars a year in their ongoing disinformation campaign, it's going to require all of us reciting the mantra, "Roll back the Reagan tax cuts!" "

[TN60]

I agree...roll back the Bush/Reagen tax cuts. Clinton raised them to 39% and left a surplus.

And.....I don't want to hear another word about competition and a "trigger" for a public opition. Why not adopt Medicare on Steriods and cut the waste for both as a public option and the cuts to make Medicare for the Elderly sound.

Another tax could be on consumption of chips, cokes/sugar drinks and any other crappy junk food that make us more unhealthy. Tax the rich and junk food !!

[schatsie]

Bingo! Roll Back the Reagan TAX CUTS RETROACTIVELY!!!

[fal]

Good info. Please view what an industry insider has to say.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/bios.php/Wendell_Potter

[ClareP]

Honestly, no one except very high earners can afford "full price"- if you look at the cost as percent of take-home pay, it gets outrageous. Add to that that this pays at PPO rates, so that there are still serious copays and percentages, and still the issue of insurers setting "prevailing charge" standards that don't come near what doctors actually charge, and you have to go higher than 400% poverty level with subsidies if you want this to mean anything. This is the cost of COBRA - which very few take for more than a very short time (even less than it is available for) because it is simply unaffordable.

The Blue Dogs are dead wrong, and yes, should start by rolling back Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (weren't we promised that that would happen anyway?), but they have to do better than this if they're claiming to make health care "affordable." And if that's the cost, there had better not be a mandate.

[rabrophy]

Why do they do what the do?
Because that's what their paid to do.

[NotALemming]

It's YOU and ME

Why do they want ME to pay more.
Not Why do they want I to pay more.

And on the Title line. Duh.

[PunKinPai]

Thank you. The epidemic of misused objective/­subjective pronouns is making I nuts.

[Project4NuBostonTeaParty]

It's got myself all upset.

[Pamlet]

" What's full price? The average family health care plan costs $12,680 per year, which comes out to $1,056 per month. For someone making 350% FPL, that's 16% of their income going to health care costs."

No, that's 16% of income going toward health insurance premiums. The true cost is higher due to co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs.