MIT Economist Confirms Senate Health Reform Bill Reduces Costs and Improves Coverage

[Clio the Leo]

A new analysis by a leading MIT economist provides new ammunition for Democrats as the Senate begins formally debating the historic health-reform bill being pushed by President Barack Obama.


The report concludes that under the Senate’s health-reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will pay less than they do for today's typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs.


So Democrats will argue that under the Senate bill, Americans would pay less for more.


The new document arms Democrats with a response to the contention of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that the bill would mean “higher premiums, higher taxes, and massive cuts to Medicare.”


The “microsimulation” analysis is by Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Treasury Department official under President Bill Clinton. Gruber used data from the Congressional Budget Office.


Gruber concludes that people purchasing individual insurance would save an annual $200 (singles) to $500 (families) in 2009 dollars. And people with low incomes would receive premium tax credits that would reduce the price that they pay for health insurance by as much as $2,500 to $7,500.


The report will be circulated to Capitol Hill this week.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29959.html

Read Report Here
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM145_final_try.html

[Cha]

1. Good Luck to the Dems when

they debate this in the Senate.

[Clio the Leo]

2. Starts tomorrow I think. NT

[annabanana]

3. GOD I wish this would get the publicity it so richly deserves.. .

Sadly, I expect it will get, maybe, one brief mention, mid-cast.. no teasers, and very little discussion. (Except of course by the remaining two or three actual NEWS people out there)

[Clio the Leo]

4. Well, Big Ed BETTER be shouting about it on MSNBC tomorrow...

.... and he very well may. He likes the Senate bill.

Would love to see KO leading off with it (or a story that included it.)

[SpartanDem]

7. Not likely when people on the left and right are determined ignore the truth

This is story has posted throughout DU and it's been largely ingnored. But let someone write a polemic how this bill greatest sellout in history, that we need a revolution and watch the thread 100 recs in the blink of an eye.

[Cha]

5. Kick!

[BrklynLiberal]

6. This better be all over the media by tomorrow!!!!!!

DAMN IT!!!

[mcablue]

8. Does this mean we don't need a public option?

Remember, this bill contains no public option. Do the high recommendations mean that we believe a public option is unnecessary to lower costs? Have we been unfair to Max Baucus?

[Clio the Leo]

9. In case there's some confusion.....

..... ;)

From the Congressional Budget Office...



http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf

[mcablue]

10. Sorry, wrong bill

I erroneously thought this study was about some other plan that did not include the public option. Thanks for the correction.

[Clio the Leo]

11. lol, no worries....

.... I've edited my reply to remove the snark.

I was thinking, "ok NOW I have heard it all!" :)

It DOES get confusing.

[karynnj]

15. the bill includes a public option unless a state opts out

[PBS Poll-435]

12. K & R &

All that good stuff.

Great Post.

[quakerboy]

13. $200?

that seems underwhelming, but it is better than increases.

[Clio the Leo]

16. You can give the $200 to me if if you like. I can use it. ;-) NT

[eridani]

14. They negelected to mention that the coverage is shitty

--and will really screw people aged 55-64. Of course, individual market coverage is pretty shitty too. The proposed MANDATORY private insurance is better only in the sense that diarrhea is better than colon cancer.