During the campaign, Barack Obama promised his cheering crowds that, when he rolled up his sleeves to work on health care, he would have “insurance company representatives and drug company representatives at the table. They just won’t be able to buy every chair.” Now is the time to look at just what kind of seats special interest groups are having at Obama’s table and what they’re doing to bring the public around to their ways of thinking. This is the fifteenth of an occasional series of posts that will analyze their activities and how the media are covering them. The entire series is archived here.
It’s obvious why President Obama, his surrogates, and advocacy groups cheering for reform have kept mum about the sine qua non of their plan—the requirement that everyone (with a few exceptions) will have to carry health insurance. The so-called individual mandate will mean that some individuals and families will have to spend a significant portion of their income on health coverage, whether they want to or not. Those with incomes low enough will get some government subsidies to help out with the premiums, but if their income is over the threshold, people are on their own.
In his address to Congress, the president finally mentioned the mandate. So it wouldn’t surprise us to see all kinds of groups weighing in on the mandate and scrambling for a seat at the president’s ever-growing table of special interest lobbyists. One of the first out of the box in opposition is Gun Owners of America (GOA), a group of some 300,000 gun owners who don’t always see eye-to-eye with their larger rival, the National Rifle Association. As soon as the Baucus draft plan circulated last week, the GOA swung into action to mobilize their members, urging them to send “mounds of gun owners’ mail” to Congress.
The group has two big concerns: first, that gun-related medical information would find its way into a federal database, “pursuant to a $20 billion program Obama insisted be included in the $787 billion stimulus bill” and be available to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Eddie Isler, a manager at the organization, said they were worried that alphabet soup agencies would have access to that information. “Your medical records could end up where you purchase firearms,” Isler explained. “Maybe someone has seen a psychiatrist. That information could pop up when they do a background check. That could come back to bite.” Plus, the gun owners aren’t keen on the individual mandate, which penalizes people who don’t cough up for health insurance.
The GOA told its members: “In a legislative draft released this week, Baucus would fine you up to $3800 for not buying precisely the insurance policy which Barack Obama orders you to buy.” The call to arms, so to speak, noted that Baucus isn’t going to tell members what will be required “under ObamaCare” and how much it will cost. He will tell you that only after the bill is passed, the GOA claimed. Specifically, its message said:
We do know that, under the Baucus draft, a lower middle income family could be forced to pay up to 13 % of its income to buy an ObamaCare policy. And presumably, a middle income family would be required to spend much, much more.
The GOA continued: “Obama opposed forcing Americans to purchase government-approved insurance during the campaign, but guess what? He lied.”
On Friday, Robert Laszewski at Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review began to quantify what the mandate could mean in dollars and cents. The Baucus draft says that subsidies would be available for a family of four with an income of $66,150, 300 percent of the federal poverty level. That family would be required to pay up to 13 percent of their income toward the cost of the policy, or $8600 a year. If that family had no other insurance but decided they could not swing the premium, they would pay a fine of $3800. Fines would be lower for people with less income.
- 1
- 2
You aren't kidding that someone has some explaining to do.
Not only $8.600 (700 per month) for premiums, but $2,000 for deductible. So you pay the first 2 grand (166 per month) in medical bills, PLUS 700 per month. For a family who has chronic medical problems that is at least $10,600 (866 per month) who grosses 5,500 per month, or nets around, what? 3,500 per month? That's about 25% of your take-home pay. And that is supposedly SUBSIDIZED.
$60,000 is around the median income for a family. So that is subsidizing half of all families. Three quarters of all families if they go up to 400% FPL.
That is a mighty, mighty gift to the insurance companies. 25% of families' take-home pay for half of all families, PLUS subsidies paid by the federal government. All mandated.
If you have better numbers than this, Trudy, I'm interested to see them.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 04:58 PM
We deserve an administration that tries, FROM THE START, to get THE BEST POSSIBLE DEAL for the PEOPLE of this country, even if it means making some waves. Obviously, Obama and the Senate Dems don't get that they work for us, and not the insurance companies.
Healthcare seems easy for European countries and Canada. I don't see why we can't or shouldn't have what they have.
Are they better than us? NO. Are they more deserving of a healthy life without these corporate monkeys on their backs? NO. If California has a recall for their governor, we need the same thing for Presidents, Senators, etc.
A vote of no confidence.
Could somebody please investigate the Obama administration and the Senate Finance committee for corruption?
There is NO WAY that there was not some kind of DEAL, planned years ago, between the administration, the GOP and the healthcare and insurance industries to STEAL AWAY the health and security of American families. Its all a big act, a big joke, on us. Please, if you are inside one of those organizations, and you know of corruption, expose it, and expose it widely.
This whole country needs affordable high quality health care for everybody, not crap insurance. People lose their jobs because they get sick. The stress is destroying this country. People cannot afford it.
Obama may look fancy but we can't afford HIM - or his generous bailouts, using our money, for the insurance industry.
This is a national health emergency. Look at it this way, if we can't use the government's muscle to DRIVE costs, like drug costs, down to international norms, and cut out that waste, affordable health care AND our country's future are doomed.
#2 Posted by Tom W, CJR on Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 01:05 PM
A "deal" planned years ago between the "administration" and the other players? How, pray tell? Did they plot this while they were plotting to plant that birth certificate in Hawaii? Or, hey! maybe that's WHY they planted the birth certificate! They've been plotting ALL THESE YEARS to steal health and security from American families! Now that Obama has been in office 8 MONTHS the plot is discovered!
::eyeroll::
#3 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 01:21 PM