Obama states Health Insurance to decrease 3000%

DaniGrrl · Mar 17, 2010

Oh my gosh, he said 3000% instead of 30 times or whatever other number was meant. Surely that shows that he is incompetent and fixing health care is a socialist plot!

Ginger's Mom, MSN, RN · Mar 18, 2010

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVn9wrhB-3SF-Svo9kZyXd4bHRLAD9EG84VO0

Fact Check according to Presidents spokeperson he meant to say $3000 a year- but even that is challenged.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Mar 18, 2010

Commonwealth Fund has quoted savings of 2500-3000/year by 2020. So that number is a fair description of family savings.

FLmomof5 · Mar 20, 2010

So... what did health insurance cost 20 years ago?

Let's start with housing.

When my father bought his first house in 1968, it cost $15000. That house, in Alexandria, VA is now worth nearly a half million. But we don't have to come this far.... the house he purchased in 1974 was $45000. If you said he could save $X in 1968, that would mean next to nothing in 1974. BTW, that 1974 house is now worth $300K. 15 yrs ago, my parents retired to Long Island. They paid $180K for their house (that was built in 1947 and sold for $7K) and is now worth $450K.

So telling someone that they will save $3K a year on a potentially $30K/yr policy wouldn't mean much. I know the libs will disagree with my premise, but so be it.

WHO will lose?

http://www.thecloakroomblog.com/2010/03/wi/

Seniors.

CUTS to medicare just as the baby boomers retire. But HEY those illegals will get covered!

What is the most LUDICROUS argument being put forth by the democrats is "well Republican's did" this or that...

SO what we really need if for the Leaders of the Minority parties in the House in the Senate to jump off a bridge.... maybe the Pelosi and Reid will follow!

God help us all if this passes.

DaniGrrl · Mar 20, 2010

I wish it wasn't called the healthcare bill, because it really isn't changing healthcare, but here goes nothing...

The healthcare bill is going to cut the deficit over the long-term: billions over the next 10 years, more than a trillion the 10 years after that. Those numbers come from the CBO.

It does not cut Medicare, but it DOES limit the profits that private insurance companies can make from Medicare Advantage. It cracks me up that so many people talk about how horrible a "government take-over of healthcare" would be, and then rail against cutting Medicare which IS government healthcare. The mind boggles. It's going to protect people who are currently on Medicare but have to pay for prescriptions out of pocket for part of the year by closing that hole in their coverage.

It's going to expand coverage for kids, immediately, including stopping insurance companies from discriminating against kids with pre-existing conditions. Thank God, because 2 of my 3 kids have those.

It's going to end lifetime caps on coverage.

It's going to limit the profits that private insurance companies can make - so that they can't keep upping rates and cutting sick people to make more and more and more money. They're going to have to actually pay out some of the money they take in to insure you, that'll be a nice change.

Also, it doesn't cover illegal immigrants, they are explicitly excluded from all the plans. Which means they'll still be using ERs as Primary Care centers, I guess that's preferable to many conservative lawmakers though it seems counterintuitive to me.

FOr most people who already have coverage through their employer, nothing will change. Your premiums will probably not go up for a few years due to new caps. Your plan will probably stop making you pay a co-pay for preventative care sometime over the next 4 years. That's about it.

If you don't have employer sponsored coverage because you work for a small company, you'll have a new way to purchase insurance instead of having to buy it on your own. If you've never had to do that, thank yourlucky stars, I have and it's a horrible experience. You have to try to balance what you need covered with what you can afford and end up paying too much for too little coverage.

mrthajenn · Mar 22, 2010

Although just as far fetched the real math is this:

*A reduction "by" is not the same as a reduction "of." A reduction "by" means you divide (by), ie if an employer pays $10,000, a 3000% reduction is $10,000/ 3000% = $333. A reduction "of" would be $10,000 multiplied by 3000% giving you the crazy numbers, and that wouldn't be a reduction! 3000% "of" $333 is $10,000, so it's a 3000% reduction from $10,000. It would have been simpler if he had said employers may be paying up to 3% "of" their current cost. But then what sounds more profound, 3 or 3000? After-all it is politics.

DaniGrrl · Mar 23, 2010

He already said that the 3000% was incorrect, he meant $3000 per year. Geez o flip.

mrthajenn · Mar 23, 2010

Wow that's hardly any money really, I mean my employer and I pay over 15K per year. 3000% and $3K is a huge difference.

mari55 · Apr 16, 2010

I wish it wasn't called the healthcare bill, because it really isn't changing healthcare, but here goes nothing...
The healthcare bill is going to cut the deficit over the long-term: billions over the next 10 years, more than a trillion the 10 years after that. Those numbers come from the CBO.
It does not cut Medicare, but it DOES limit the profits that private insurance companies can make from Medicare Advantage. It cracks me up that so many people talk about how horrible a "government take-over of healthcare" would be, and then rail against cutting Medicare which IS government healthcare. The mind boggles. It's going to protect people who are currently on Medicare but have to pay for prescriptions out of pocket for part of the year by closing that hole in their coverage.
I am so appreciative of the way you disseminated this information.