HEALTH CARE 10/18/09

Related to the Public Option is whether people are going to be required to have health care insurance. With the help of The Times this will perhaps give a better understanding of what is under consideration. The bold face is mine.

All the bills now under consideration require nearly all Americans to have a minimum level of health insurance or pay a penalty.

House version Would include mandate. Exempt those who cannot afford insurance and people with religious objections. The bill does not specify standards for financial hardship waivers.

Penalty: 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income over a certain level ($18,700 for a couple).

Senate Health Committee Would include mandate. Exempt American Indians and those who cannot afford insurance. The bill does not specify standards for financial hardship waivers.

Penalty: Up to $750 a person a year.

Senate Finance Committee Would include mandate, starting in 2013. Exempt American Indians, people with religious objections, those who cannot afford insurance, households with incomes lower than 133 percent of the poverty level ($29,327 for a family of four) and individuals who would have to pay more than 8 percent of their income to buy the lowest cost plan available to them.

Penalty would be phased in gradually: $200 a person in 2014; $400 in 2015; $600 in 2016; and $750 in 2017.

White House position: Open to a mandate as long as people who cannot afford insurance are exempt. During the campaign, President Obama proposed mandates for children only.

“I am open to your ideas on shared responsibility. But I believe if we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable. If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it.” (Letter to Senate leaders, June 3)

Interest groups: America’s Health Insurance Plans, the insurers’ lobby, supports individual mandates. If individual mandates are passed, insurers say they will stop refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions and charging higher premiums based on gender or health status. Most of the proposals allow insurers to charge more for older people, subject to federal limits.

Drug companies and insurers could benefit from mandates, which could provide millions of new customers.

Labor unions and consumer groups support mandates for individuals as long as employers are required to help pay for coverage.

Note there is a Federal run program for Indians on the Reservations. Those with religious objections against traditional health care should not be forced to participate, but they should also recluse themselves when it is needed. WShen health care services are needed under extraordinary conditions then it should be available to all.

Once again the elderly and those depending on Social Security and Medicare are being force into a position where the cost of adequate health care is being made intolerable.

A personal example, even with the 2009 COLA increase, the premium increases and surcharges have resulted in my wife receiving less Social Security payment than in 2008. With the 2010 zero COLA increase and expected increases in premiums her expendable income will drop more.