The Senate bill includes a tax on brand-name drug companies and health insurers

[ProSense]

This is in addition to the tax on high-premium plans

The largest element of the financing of the House plan is a surtax on high income taxpayers (raising $460 billion over 10 years), a proposal not included in the Senate bill. The Senate plan, in turn, includes two proposals not in the House bill – an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for high income workers (producing $54 billion), and a new tax on high-premium employer-sponsored health plans (raising $149 billion). Both proposals contain new excise taxes on various health industries, though the scope of the taxes varies – the House taxes only medical device makers (for revenues of $20 billion), while the Senate bill also includes taxes on brand-name drug companies and health insurers (for total revenue of $102 billion).

A major financing component of both proposals is a reduction (relative to current law) in federal spending on existing health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid ($456 billion in the House and $491 billion in the Senate). The savings, which come primarily from Medicare changes, are net amounts, reflecting changes in the programs that increase costs as well (though not increased eligibility for Medicaid, which is accounted for under the cost of expanded coverage). The House bill, for example, includes increased payments to primary care providers in Medicaid at a cost of $57 billon over 10 years.

PDF

[Clio the Leo]

1. I have a feeling....

.... this thing may not turn out to be the steaming pile of poo poo that some had hoped. ;)

[Armstead]

2. We have not been "hoping" it is a steaming pile of poo poo

Sorry, but most of actually wanted something better.

And if anyone says the word "pony".....

[ProSense]

3. You have been declaring it that, though.

Without all the facts at that.

[Armstead]

8. The fact is that a public option was killed but corporate mandates survived

That is a fact.

And that alone makes it a "pile of steaming poo poo."

There are other facts that make it a pile of poo poo, like relying on the goodness of insurance companies not to raise their rates through the roof.

But the core fact that it is locking everyone into private insurabnce with no public alternative is enough to make this bill suck in its present form.

[burning rain]

4. I'd like to see the House insist on the surtaxes for the rich...

Those unwilling to raise taxes on the rich are not fit to call themselves Democrats.

[ProSense]

5. Most likely

it will end up a mix of these proposals.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. Do you not get that they are raising taxes to subsidize private companies?

That is the issue. Mandates to purchase, fines if you don't, premiums subsidized with tax payer's money AND their profits cast in concrete at 15- 20 % as per the Medical Loss Ratios.

You are not understanding what is being debated here.

This is a huge giveaway to private corporations at taxpayer expense !

[ProSense]

7. Do you understand that they are subsidizing health coverage for millions of Americans?

"You are not understanding what is being debated here."

I think you are the one who doesn't understand.

Krugman: Guys, this is a major program to aid lower- and lower-middle-income families. How is that not a big progressive victory?

[Armstead]

9. Why not funnel those subsidies into Medicare or a public option instead?

[ProSense]

11. Ask Congress. n/t

[Armstead]

12. We have been for months

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. subsidizing health coverage in mandated private plans with no public

option and no real mechanism for cost containment. The ONLY cost containment they have is the mandates themselves putting more people into the pool of the insured which should, in theory drive costs down. In reality, I don't see why that should happen, as it doesn't happen now.

One of the best and truest comments ever posted about healthcare reform ever posted in these forums is that essentially all these private companies have been awarded a mandatory "cost plus" contract with the American public. It's all carrots and no sticks for the insurers.

Yes, subsidies are nice in theory, until you look at some of the figures put out by MIT, Nate Silver, Marcy Wheeler, the Kaiser Foundation and many others that show that for the uncovered uninsured - exactly the people reform was supposed to help the most- they will STILL find even after reform, that the cost of premiums, co-pays and deductables will eat up approx 20% of their income so that they will most likely REMAIN uninsured and uncovered, even with subsidies. Many have helpfully pointed out that only happens if you actually need the healthcare the insurance is supposed to provide. Oh . . . good point, I . . . guess.

Everyone, Krugman included, is trying to put the best possible face they can on this mess, because it will be chalked up as a major loss for Obama and the Democrats if it doesn't pass. Political reasons to pass a political Potemkin village of a health reform bill.

[ProSense]

13. "Everyone, Krugman included, is trying to put the best possible face they can on this mess" No, you

seem to be focused on what you think the bill should do instead of what it actually does.

The Senate bill includes community health centers, state exchanges and this:

More Health Insurance Choices

• Multi-state option. Health insurance carriers will offer plans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees health plans for Members of Congress. At least one plan must be non-profit, and the plans will be available nationwide. This will promote competition and choice.
  
  
• Free choice vouchers. Workers who qualify for an affordability exemption to the individual responsibility policy but do not qualify for tax credits can take their employer contribution and join an exchange plan.

PDF

[MNDemNY]

14. It is not a victory because...

it further entrenches this country in a for-profit employment-based health care system that has been proven not to work. Any furtherance of this system IS A FAILURE. Plain and simple. Those who shill this thing for purely political reasons do not care about anything but a "win" for the administration. Damn the consequences.

[Mass]

15. You of course realize that the tax on high premium health plans is bad. I know it initially seemed

a good idea, but, with the types of threshold it has, it will strike mostly companies hiring people over 50 and small companies, that cannot negotiate huge discounts like the big companies can. It also will strike companies who made the effort to negotiate good contracts for their workers rather than those who negotiated shitty plans. Somebody helps me understand why it is a good thing. They should have added an extra tax for insurance companies on their profit, rather than something like that.

I certainly hope they will rise the threshold dramatically, take into account specific issues, and use the surtax over the very rich, like in the House.