Free Markets, Free People

Reid’s Compromise Plan – More Costly To Taxpayers

It would appear the “Gang of 10 (Senators)” compromise bill which Harry Reid has been touting but refusing to give details about would bend the cost curve way up:

Senate Democrats have provided few details about their latest health care proposal, but this much seems clear: Anyone who wants to buy the same health benefits as members of Congress, or to buy coverage through Medicare, should be prepared to fork over a large chunk of cash.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, a family of four earning $54,000 in 2016, when the health legislation is fully in effect, would be eligible for a subsidy of $10,100 to help defray the cost of insurance under the health legislation being debated by the Senate. By then, one of the most popular federal plans, a nationwide Blue Cross and Blue Shield policy, is projected to cost more than $20,000.

That could leave the family earning $54,000, slightly more than the current median household income, with monthly premium costs of more than $825.

The Democrats’ proposal would also allow some people ages 55 to 64 to “buy in” to Medicare, starting in 2011. That could cost about $7,600 a year per person or $15,200 for a couple, according to a budget office analysis of an earlier version of the concept. No subsidies would be available until 2014.

So why are many Democrats so “enthusiastic” over the proposal. Well, let’s knock off all the spin and be blunt about it:

“Extending this successful program to those between 55 and 64 would be the largest expansion of Medicare in 44 years and would perhaps get us on the path to a single-payer model,” said Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York.

That is the name of the game here and don’t ever loose sight of that. Liberals want a government run single-payer system. And whether they get there via a “public option” or expanding Medicare doesn’t matter one whit to them.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

9 Responses to Reid’s Compromise Plan – More Costly To Taxpayers

  • An alternate suspicion of mine is that they are planning on crashing medicare by defunding and overloading it so that the seniors want the public option. 

  • Desperate times call for desperate measures.

  • I thought that the idea was to save money because health care costs are skyrocketting.  Silly me.

    • Cover everyone, eliminate discrimination based on race, sex, age, weight and health condition (unless you are a smoker, they get singled out for special higher rates), punish highly compensated health insurance CEOs and stockholders, tax the rich, insure union health care trust funds are backstopped with tax dollars, create thousands of unionized health care jobs, undercut ERISA, deprive people of liberty, destroy private health care as we know it and…..
      save some money too.

      • Gotta get me some of THAT!!!!

        / sarc

        It is to be hoped that Americans will learn from this disaster just how inept the Congress is, STOP letting them “solve problems”, and realize that the less Congress does, the better off the country is.

        • unlikely, this won’t teach them.  What MIGHT teach them is the comming total economic collapse, and hyperinflation.

  • But public option two, which was never on the agenda before, a buy-in to the actual Medicare program for 55- to 64-year-olds, is an enormous positive development. It’s actually the original idea, if you will, for the public option, simply letting people get into the Medicare program that provides broad, secure coverage at an affordable price.”

    When you have, Jacob Hacker of Yale University, dubbed by some as the inventor of the “public option”, calling this a positive development, you know there is nothing good here.