Study: 1.2 million uninsured New Yorkers may get coverage under federal health reform

[hedgehog]

Source: Syracuse Post-Standard

Syracuse, N.Y. -- About 1.2 million uninsured New Yorkers could get health care coverage under federal health reform, according to a study released today.

The report by the New York State Health Foundation said the number of people who gain coverage through the federal law will largely depend on how well New York implements the reforms.

There are 2.6 million uninsured children and non-elderly adults in New York state. The report estimates that up to 440,000 people currently eligible for Medicaid buy not enrolled may sign up because of more aggressive outreach efforts. Up to another 70,000 individuals could become newly eligible for Medicaid and enroll in the state-federal health insurance program. The report also said about 570,000 people are expected to use tax subsidies to buy insurance through an exchange — a marketplace to connect consumers and employers to insurers. It also estimates 80,000 are likely to buy coverage through an exchange without federal subsidies.

“Health care reform is an unprecedented opportunity to provide affordable health care to the majority of New Yorkers and we cannot let this moment slip by,” James R. Knickman, the foundation’s president and CEO, said in a prepared statement.

Read more: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/study_12_million_uninsured_new.html

---

We will still have a lot of people without coverage, but I bet there 1.2 million New Yorkers who like the Health Care Bill!

[Cal Carpenter]

1. Misleading

They won't all 'get coverage' - roughly half of them will be forced to buy health insurance whether or not they can afford to use it, or be fined for not doing so. And the income guidelines have little basis in reality - if you barely make ends meet to feed your family and keep a roof over your head, where is the money for the premium coming from? The copays?

The other half are folks who haven't enrolled in Medicaid but qualify to do so. If they do enroll it won't be because of anything new other than 'outreach efforts' - basically just (theoretically) improved implementation of a program which already exists.

Sorry, not buying it.

[hedgehog]

3. A step forward is a step forward - there will be tax subsidies for

some people to buy insurance through the exchange. A lot more may find insurance affordable for the first time. I would love single payer today, but I realize that given the number of people involved it will take a while to get us there.

[zipplewrath]

5. It's the health care COSTS that are the problem

Forget single payer, there's little here to help us all afford health CARE. The costs are going up at unsustainable rates. The reason health insurance is hard to get/afford is because health care COSTS are rising so fast. This allowed single digit percentages of people to join in a system that's already collapsing. We just invited people onto the Titanic to help us rearrange the deck chairs.

[hedgehog]

7. Again, the bill takes the first steps in addressing costs both

indirectly

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/health-care-bill-wont-help-employers-cut-costs.html

and directly

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/02/saving-money-and-giving-seniors-better-benefits

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the_five_most_promising_cost_c.html


I noticed several stories this summer about big crackdowns on Medicare fraud by doctors and suppliers.

IIRC, the bill also sets programs in place to document best practices, encourage students to become GPs rather than specialists, and develop electronic methods of keeping health care records to avoid needlessly repeated tests and help prevent medical errors.

[zipplewrath]

12. That's all about saving the government money

indirectly

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/arch...

That's mostly cost shifting, placing the burden on the client and getting them to use fewer or cheaper resources. I've got that now. It doesn't particularly save me any cash. My cost continue to rise every year as the rise in costs is faster than any ability to actually lower them.

and directly

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/02/saving-money-...

Sorry, this is about saving medicare money, not the end consumer. It does little if anything to control the cost of health CARE.

The new law will help reform this broken system, save money for Medicare and give seniors higher quality care. As the report notes, the new law will implements a number of provisions that will save money and improve care like programs to help reduce avoidable hospital readmissions and fight hospital acquired conditions.

The only people particularly saving money here are the feds, which was the focus of HCR, that and giving the insurance companies large numbers of new customers subsidized by the federal government.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the...

Sorry, the vast majority of that is features to save medicaid money, not the end user. Very little if anything in there to save the consumer money, or control the cost of health care. Heck, he talks about the cadillac taxes whose primary effect is to reduce access to health care by making it too expensive to use.

As I say, it all saved money for the feds, but the rate of cost increases in health CARE was left largely untouched. I don't think you understand just how fast costs are going up. There's nothing in the bill that's particularly going to address that problem, which is why you're seeing double digit increases in insurance premiums.

[Swagman]

8. I think you are right. Small annoying steps forward are better than

nothing. The experience in Australia is an example. Universal healthcare introduced 25 years ago...now no conservative government dares touch it and in fact both major parties fight to have better policies to improve it. But it started off just like your plan.

I reckon in 10 years the Teabaggers will be screaming for better universal healthcare.

[hedgehog]

9. First time I''ve read of that experience. Thanks!

[enlightenment]

10. Too bad they aren't implementing 'universal healthcare'

in the US, then. Did your plan really start with mandating purchase of insurance from for-profit private corporations? Could you provide a citation or two, because I'd really like to read more about it.

Health Insurance and Health CARE are not the same thing, and as has been said - over and over and over again - the 'reform' that has become law in this country will not substantively improve access to to health CARE in this country, despite all the rhetoric. It simply enlarges the pool of participants in the insurance industry shake-down - and intensifies the system of tiered access to care that means the rich get better and the poor die.

[fogonthelake]

18. Nicely said. sad and maddenly true.

[area51]

11. The trouble is, we're not heading toward single-payer.

Even though it would save lives and money.

We've just entrenched blood-sucking parasites into the health care mix, by giving the for-profit agencies power over us, with mandated purchase. It's my understanding that any subsidies would be either once a year kickbacks via the IRS, or maybe writeoffs. That's an entire year of trying to pay the monthly fee before you might get any relief. How many people can afford that?

Each day, 273 people die due to lack of health care in the U.S., that's 100,000 deaths per year.

We need single-payer health care, not a welfare bailout for the serial-killer insurance agencies.

"We will never have real reform until people's health stops being treated as a financial opportunity for corporations."

[zipplewrath]

4. I agree

There are people that will now get health insurance, that didn't before. But a large number of these people are folks that already had "access" but chose not to get it, or were unaware that they could.

Look at their numbers. 2.6 million uninsured, but 1.2 million will now get it. 440,000 are folks that were already qualified for medicaid. Only 70,000 were "newly eligible". 570,000 will use subsidies, but that doesn't mean they had no access before, it just means they'll get subsidies. 80,000 won't get subsidies but will use exchanges, that doesn't mean they didn't have access, or insurance, before. The CBO, in a statistic abused by the GOP, mentioned that people actually might pay more for insurance, BECAUSE THEY COULD GET BETTER INSURANCE at a slightly higher price.

There is no mention in the article of how many of the 1.2 million will be getting it through employers who now will be encouraged to purchase it. Many of those employees will have had health insurance through other means. And no menition of what happens to the 1.4 million that STILL won't have insurance, not to mention health CARE.

This bill was a marginal improvement in the ability of people to purchase health insurance, and did little to nothing to improve the health CARE situation for the vast majority of Americans. It did save the federal government money though. They'll need it to keep fighting wars in Afghanistan.

[madrchsod]

6. i`m not buying it either...

there`s a wide gap between what is being claimed and the cold hard reality of this so called reform.

[superconnected]

14. How do you feel about say - Canada's health care?

Do you understand that every country with national health care charges the citizens a price for it? Usually it comes in taxes. I'm all for people opting out of paying for health care but only if they will absolutely be refused hospital entry if they end up needing it. You can bet they can't afford it and everyone else will have to eat their cost.

[Cal Carpenter]

16. There's a huge difference

Of course health care has to be funded by tax dollars. But our system has extra costs of ridiculous profit for insurance companies. This bill does not reduce those extra costs. That should not be a taxpayer burden, so some executive can get a bigger yacht or private plane.

Additionally, our 'affordability' income measurements are bullshit. People in Canada don't have to decide between paying for co-pays or buying food. That's what happens here, and this bill won't stop it. 'Opting out of paying for health care'?! Come on, that's absurd. The vast majority of the uninsured *simply can't afford it*. They aren't 'opting out', they are broke. They have no money. It's not a choice. This bill will not help most of those people. In fact, in some cases it will effectively punish them with a fine for being broke. It's absurd. Completely irrational and unjust (unless you are a health insurance or big pharma executive of course).

As wages are depressed and workplace benefits are shrinking into nonexistence for the working class, this 'historic' bill is worse than no change at all. The health care system needs a radical overhaul and this sure as shit ain't it. And now it won't even be brought back into discussion for at least a decade barring a revolution.

And all those helpful moderate voices telling us 'we can fix it later'...where are they now? Where are the fixes?

All that has happened is that corporate profits have become even more embedded in our laws, and the overburdened taxpayers have to carry that load. And many of them still can't afford to go to a doctor.

[superconnected]

17. The bill hasn't even taken effect yet. Everyone knows the problem is insurance companies.

But there is provisioning in the bill for the US to open a health office for the first time and that's the first step. Until we can convince Americans that they should demand universal health care we will get no where. They're still claiming it's communist. After they have it they will eventually see it as a right and demand it. Then things change. However with nothing or things staying the same, they will get no where with health care.

[MARALE]

2. I do know someone who benifits from the healthcare

She has a birthday defect that affects her muscle growth. Her parents are both self employed and can not afford to get very good health insurance. They are very happy with the new health care plan. I listen to them because they are using it and know how much good is coming from it. I am also glad my 21 year old son will have insurance under my plan because he is taking a little longer at college than 4 years.

I don't know a lot about the health care program, but do know where it is helping.

[groundloop]

13. Baby steps are better than no steps .... however.

Yes, I agree that there is plenty of good in this bill. However I still find myself disappointed because I dared to have a vision of universal coverage via a single payer system.

My wife and I are both ensured through our employers, but are unhappy with our coverage and there doesn't seem to be much in this bill that will help us. THANKS LIEBERMAN !!!!

[superconnected]

15. This was the first rendition. We have to get America to first accept and expect health care

coverage. Half are still mentally preferring no coverage and calling it Socialist and Communist. We'll get universal health care eventually - when people demand it. These baby steps are big steps for a baby, even though it doesn't help you or me immediately.