TNR's Jon Cohn and MIT's Jonathan Gruber, both oft-cited in this blog, have collaborated on a chart laying out typical costs for families up to about $85,000 per annum without reform (Senate version) and with it. The table can be found here.
The numbers aren't just good, they're pretty great. Take a family of four at $48,000, double the poverty line. Currently, this family faces roughly a $12,000 premium and another $12,000 limit on out-of-pocket expenses, for a total possible annual cost of $24,000 -- half their income. Under reform, the premium is $3,629, and total out-of-pocket max is $6,300, for a total possible liability of $9,929 -- 21% of income. That's still a lot, but it's a helluva lot less than half.
The political problem -- the "backlash" problem everyone speaks of -- is that $9,929 is, well, a lot more than zero, which is what a lot of people (who choose to eschew insurance) pay now. But of course people will hit that $9,000-plus only if they have extraordinary health issues (in which case another benefit of reform kicks in -- they can't be thrown off their plans or see their rates jacked up extortionately).
So assume instead that the typical family that does not now buy insurance won't spend the full $9,929, but something closer to the $3,600 premium level -- a few trips to the doctor, a couple of prescriptions, one consultation with a specialist. Say it brings them to right around $4,800. That's 10% of their income.
It's a lot. But if this family didn't buy insurance and had to rush a kid to an emergency room, they'd be staring at maybe a $2,000 bill right away. And they wouldn't even bother with the trips to the doctor and the specialist, meaning that they would really only pay more later.
The backlash question, it seems to me, comes down to this. Will this family decide that $300 a month is a rape of their liberty? Or will they decide yeah, $300 a month in premiums hurts, but it sure feels nice to be able to take a kid to a doctor when she's sick instead of just avoiding the problem, and to pay a usually affordable co-payment. And get the kid antibiotics when needed for $5 or $10.
The coverage has to be good, and the GOP will find every little example where things didn't work and will peddle them to the media and so forth. But big-picture, I dunno: I really think most people would take the above trade-off. And of course they'd really take if one of them had diabetes or MS or something worse.
The numbers aren't just good, they're pretty great. Take a family of four at $48,000, double the poverty line. Currently, this family faces roughly a $12,000 premium and another $12,000 limit on out-of-pocket expenses, for a total possible annual cost of $24,000 -- half their income. Under reform, the premium is $3,629, and total out-of-pocket max is $6,300, for a total possible liability of $9,929 -- 21% of income. That's still a lot, but it's a helluva lot less than half.
The political problem -- the "backlash" problem everyone speaks of -- is that $9,929 is, well, a lot more than zero, which is what a lot of people (who choose to eschew insurance) pay now. But of course people will hit that $9,000-plus only if they have extraordinary health issues (in which case another benefit of reform kicks in -- they can't be thrown off their plans or see their rates jacked up extortionately).
So assume instead that the typical family that does not now buy insurance won't spend the full $9,929, but something closer to the $3,600 premium level -- a few trips to the doctor, a couple of prescriptions, one consultation with a specialist. Say it brings them to right around $4,800. That's 10% of their income.
It's a lot. But if this family didn't buy insurance and had to rush a kid to an emergency room, they'd be staring at maybe a $2,000 bill right away. And they wouldn't even bother with the trips to the doctor and the specialist, meaning that they would really only pay more later.
The backlash question, it seems to me, comes down to this. Will this family decide that $300 a month is a rape of their liberty? Or will they decide yeah, $300 a month in premiums hurts, but it sure feels nice to be able to take a kid to a doctor when she's sick instead of just avoiding the problem, and to pay a usually affordable co-payment. And get the kid antibiotics when needed for $5 or $10.
The coverage has to be good, and the GOP will find every little example where things didn't work and will peddle them to the media and so forth. But big-picture, I dunno: I really think most people would take the above trade-off. And of course they'd really take if one of them had diabetes or MS or something worse.
