> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Marta Russell
> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> > Which is the point of everyone under the Bradley plan automatically being
> > eligible for the Federal system of health care plans to avoid such
> > cherry-picking.
>
> It doesn't eliminate cherry picking. The consumer union's analysis
> has been very clear that cherry picking hasn't been dealt with well at all.
> What will exist under Bradley's plan is what exists now -- a number
> of health plans to "choose" from. Each HMO, PPO, and the federal plans
underwrite
> to their own specific concerns, therefore, each plan is not the same and it is
> loaded to assure the insurance corporation the greatest possible protection
against
> risk.
Note from the FEHB FAQ: "I have a pre-existing heart condition. Can I change plans without worrying about a waiting period? Yes, you can. There are no exclusions or waiting periods for pre-existing conditions in any plan in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program."
Also, looking over the Consumers Union Report comparing Gore and Bradley, CU says that Bradley is preferable in every aspect other than arguing that Gore's Medicare reforms are better. See http://www.consumersunion.org/health/debateinfo.htm
Read carefully--
Consumers Union- "The Bradley plan will without a doubt insure more people...Senator Bradley's plan offers a more meaningful starting point for tackling the problems of the uninsured...The Bradley tax credit is likely to be used by a very large percentage of the eligible population, since it by design would cover the entire premium, and the person applying CANNOT BE TURNED DOWN for coverage."(emphasis added)
In another report on the specific impact of the plan on Medicaid, another report by Consumers Union states (in http://www.consumersunion.org/health/goremeddc1299.htm):
"People with disabilities could benefit from both the Bradley and Gore plans. With the Bradley plan, when they return to work they could buy into the FEHBP. (Like other adults participating in FEHBP, they could not be turned down for coverage, and would be eligible for the group rate)."
Consumers Union notes some questions on details from Bradley's plan on what would happen to current funds for certain hospitals and other programs that fund the infrastructure for the disabled, but Bradley's plan does also include funds to deal with such issues in a "special needs pool." This is an area that needs clarification by Bradley but Consumers Union is clear that the plan on its face should improve the lives of most disabled folks by allowing them to buy into group rate coverage without discrimination -- an amazing advance for a whole range of folks facing discrimination in the non-federal private health care market.
Marta, I really don't think you recognize how important a reform Bradley is suggesting by allowing anyone to buy into the FEHBP, since it gives anyone access to group rates without facing discrimination for preexisting conditions - a very different situation from most HMOs and private employer-based coverage.
Consumers Union does worry about whether the subsidies will be sufficient, but they also note that current per person costs for Medicaid are disproportionately high because a large number are "pregnant women (with higher costs associated with pregnancy)." Bradley's plan specifically covers 100% of all prenatal care for all families with income up to $32,800, so those costs would be alleviated. Consumers Union notes "it is reasonable to assume that the marginal cost per enrollee for newly subsidized adults up to the federal poverty level could be lower than that of current Medicaid beneficiaries."
As for specific costs, here are the annual premiums for family coverage under a variety of FEHB plans -- remember Bradley's plan covers up to $5000 premium:
In California: Aetna US HelthCare HMO-- $5459.48 Blue Shield Access+HMO-- $4753.92 California Care-- $4409.76
Plans across the country are similar with most plans clustered a bit under $5000 or a bit under -- so Bradley's amount is pegged in the middle of average cost, not at the bottom.
>If you have info showing that $150
> per month
> > (or $5000 per family) cannot buy a decent plan under the Federal Employees
> > Health Benefits Program, that might argue otherwise.
>
> Nathan how old are you? 20 something?? You have no idea about what
> you speak.
> Older people and disabled people do not fit into the same demographics as YOU.
> The typical premium for a private policy for a chronically ill or
> disabled person is over $400 per month (this is what the government pays per
Medicare
> HMO enrollee and the HMOs scream that it isn't enough) and I have heard as
high as $1,100.
> None of those disabled people on Medicaid can pay these rates. A
> voucher for $150 will be a death sentence.
First, as noted by the Consumers Union analysis, anyone buying into FEHBP is able to buy in at group rates, irregardless of age or disability.
There are definately questions worth asking about how the plan will deal with issues of disability, but you have yet to cite any evidence that Bradley's plan will make things worse for anyone, and there is evidence that it will improve access to health care for many people because of access to the FEHBP.
And I return to the basic point I like about Bradley's plan - he promises to increase health care spending by $60 billion per year. Forget details-- less money means more hardship for the disabled and vulnerable, while more money means a far greater likelihood of decent coverage. Details matter but more money for low-income health care is the best assurance of health care access. That seems like a basic improvement which you seem unwilling to even acknowledge.
Again, Bradley's plan is not perfection, but even Consumers Union which you cite argues that Bradley's plan would improve the lives and coverage for low-income and most disabled folks. They raise legitimate questions but there is no part of the plan on its face that promises a worse situation for the poor and disabled. On the other hand, current trends in the status quo continue to drive more and more people out of coverage and cutbacks continue for the poor and disabled.
So Bradley's plan does seem like a reform worth promoting, even as activists can fight to improve the details and make sure that everyone benefits from it.
-- Nathan Newman