In order to come up with numbers below $1 trillion when trying to pass the original bill, lawmakers also included a provision that would reduce payments who treat Medicare patients by 21 percent. Well, surprise surprise, there is now a bill being taken up in the House, the American Works, State and Business Relief Act of 2010, H.R. 4213, which would delay this payment reduction. Expect this payment reduction to be delayed, eventually, forever.

Insurance companies in the individual market have mostly eliminated any rate guarantees (previously most plans came with a 12 – 24 month rate guarantee), because they are anticipating major rate increases in conjunction with some of the upcoming changes. The most immediate and severe impact will likely be on rates for children, since all underwriting on dependent children will be eliminated starting September 23.

If you have a child with a serious health problem, the good news is that you will now be able to add them to your policy. However, everyone who has a child covered will be paying for their care through sharply increased premiums. The insurance companies have not revealed any new rates yet, but I anticipate 100 – 200% rate increases on children.

Now the average male lives to be about 75, and the average guy receives benefits for twice as long.

In January of last year, the first babyboomers started retiring. This massive wave of retirees will start receiving Medicare benefits, and be spending so much that Medicare trustees predict funds will run out in 2019.

At the same time, we are spending like crazy, and government debt is skyrocketing. Total U.S. debt is now 60.8% of our gross domestic product, and expected to rise to 79% of GDPP by 2035.

The interest that the Federal government pays is expected to rise from $170 billion/year to $806 billion/year by 2019.

And here we are considering healthcare reform legislation which increases costs, according to the CBO. Given the likelihood that current proposals will ultimately cost way more than currently forecasted, we could be facing overwhelming government debt before we know it.

If something passes without fundamentally addressing rising costs, there will only be one way for the government to deal with the situation: price controls and rationing. Which means a system that delays coverage, has long waits to see doctors, cuts spending on leading edge technology, and denies treatment for many conditions.

This is a real, potentially very serious issue for all of us who may be retiring in the next 10 to 25 years. Which is why it makes imminent sense to be putting as much money as possible into a Health Savings Account. Having a funded HSA will give you an option one day if your Medicare program refuses to pay for treatment you need.

By the way, you must have your HSA-qualified plan effective by December 1 to make a tax-deductible contribution for 2009.

Those who support this bill and claim to be for more competition, are really against allowing true competition by enabling people to choose the type of health coverage they want, and purchase across state lines.

Instead of legislation which encourages people to carry their own private health insurance coverage, this legislation further entrenches employer-sponsored health insurance – lessening individual choice, and leaving people tied to their employment.

Most importantly, instead of doing anything to cut costs and spending, this proposal will raise costs for all, and will create the need for another government solution in the near future. That solution, of course, will be the final step in a complete government takeover of healthcare.

If you get it, I’d suggest letting your Congressional representative know how you feel about it all, today. When you do, you may want to mention how important Health Savings Accounts are to keeping health insurance costs down – more important now than ever, as if this passes rates will be going up for all of us.

The main thing we talked about how was much the premiums will go up on our customers, and her constituents, if this healthcare reform passes. (That’s looking like a bigger “IF” than ever, by the way).

When it happens, it will be easy to look back in history and see where this has occurred before. In the late 80’s and early 90’s, several states passed legislation that was to guarantee affordable health insurance to all. Here’s a few quotes:

“This is an incredibly exciting moment that should make all Vermonters proud”. – Vermont Governor Howard Dean, 1992

“Tennessee will now cover at least 95 percent of its citizens” – Tennessee Governmor Ned McWherter, 1992

“Massachusetts will now be the first state in the country to enact universal health insurance.” – Massachusetts Governmor Michael Dukakis, 1988

These were signing ceremony statements, for poorly considered legislation that has now been repealed in every single state listed.

Unfortunately, you cannot pay for healthcare will slogans and good will. The biggest problem with the proposals now making their way through Congress is that little attention has been paid to reducing costs, and thus these plans are doomed to fail.

When it all comes crumbling down, the pro-government forces will again try to blame private industry, and suggest that an even bigger government solution is the answer.

But (here’s a bold statement), I think that there are enough smart people in Congress to realize that the current healthcare reform proposals are a huge mess – that we may not see anything at all pass. And this country will have dodged a bullet, for sure.

Betsy, I hope you’re paying attention, and thinking very carefully about this.

Politicians saying they want to keep someone else honest. That would be pretty funny, if it weren’t so deceitful and tragic.

In most states there are currently hundreds of health insurance plans available. In some states with restrictive regulations there are very few. A very simple way to increase competition would be to allow people in those states (such as Maine, NY, NJ, and others) to buy coverage across state lines. However, those politicians who claim to be for more competition don’t like this kind of competition.

The latest iteration of the government-run health insurance plan would give states the right to opt-out, as long as they pass legislation doing so within a year of the new law taking effect. But since the government plan will be subsidized with your tax dollars, states that opt out would simply be forced to subsidize the states that opt in.

Olympia Snowe, the only Republican to vote for the Senate Finance committee bill, favors a government-sponsored plan that is only “triggered,” once certain conditions are met. This would simply delay things until conditions are even worse, an inevitable result of the proposed legislation.

For example, if 95% of Americans don’t have adequate health insurance coverage by a certain date, the public option would be triggered. Since the result of the proposed legislation will be increasing premiums, it is almost a certainty that 95% of Americans will not have the coverage that is required and defined under this bill.

The very best option at this point, as I’ve said before, is to shelve it all and start over. A market based solution that includes the expansion of Health Savings Accounts, tort reform, and allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines is what we need. Not the every increasing expansion of government.

All 1500 pages are now available to read here:

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf

Turns out that Senators from “red” states are taking care of themselves in this bill.

Senator Harry Reid’s state of Nevada will be exempt from increased Medicaid expenses that other states will face, for the first 5 years of Obamacare. And there’s more:

Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Michigan also will be subsidized by other states.

Senator Charles Schumer’s New York constituents will be exempt from a 40% tax on health benefit plans until the benefit amounts reaches $25,000, instead of $21,000 in every other state.

Senators Debbie Stabenow from Michigan and and John Kerry from Massachusetts are taking care of the unions in their states, with $5 billion set aside to defray medical costs for union members.

So obviously, if you are not in one of the groups above, then you are in the group that pays for all of the above. In this kind of game, it is about having someone else pick up the tab for you. So unlike Health Savings Accounts, which are all about personal responsibility…

71% oppose the individual mandate

Only 21% said they would support a law saying everyone would have to obtain health insurance approved by the government, or pay a tax of $750 or more every year.

68% oppose reducing seniors’ health benefits

One of the ways healthcare reform will be paid for is by reducing spending on Medicare. A majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all oppose this provision.

71% are concerned about losing their current coverage

A lot of people will end up having to change coverage if healthcare reform passes. Despite Obama’s promises that this won’t happen, people don’t believe him and are rightly worried about this.

There are parts of our current healthcare system that are unfair and too expensive, and everyone knows that. But more people favor a targeted approach that addresses the problems, as opposed to a comprehensive approach that makes significant changes to our current healthcare system.

Americans are not stupid. We know that a government takeover of health care will mean long waits to see a doctor, less choice, more taxes, more debt, and poorer quality healthcare.