( continues...) market because of government interference," adding, "The president is right. The tax code should be changed to help them" (CongressDaily, 1/22).

Industry Reaction

Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans -- which has not taken a position on the proposal -- said, "With the president coming forward and making health care such a major issue on his priority list, I think progress is definitely possible." Ignagni said the proposal might increase cost for some unionized employees (AP/San Jose Mercury News, 1/22). Randel Johnson, vice president of labor and employment benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said, "We're open-minded and looking at it." JoAnn Volk, a health care lobbyist for AFL-CIO, said the proposal would have an adverse effect on unionized employees with good health benefits and would not address health care cost. "It sounds like the same bad policy," Volk said (CongressDaily, 1/22).

Additional Reaction

Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, said, "Ninety-five percent of the uninsured wouldn't get a significant amount of money from this deduction because they earn so little" (Luhby, Long Island Newsday, 1/23). Davis said the proposal would not significantly reduce the number of uninsured U.S. residents, adding that it is difficult for residents of certain states to obtain affordable non-group health insurance if they have pre-existing medical conditions. Paul Fronstin, director of the health research and education program at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, said the proposal would mean "the end of employer-based coverage as we know it." Under the proposal, employees "would get the same tax breaks on their own as their employers, so employers may view this as a reason to stop offering the benefit," Fronstin said (Fahy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 1/23). Diane Rowland, executive vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said some people with health insurance policies worth more than $15,000 do not necessarily have "gold-plated" plans, a term Bush used in his speech. Rowland added, "A single cap can mean very different things in different places of the country" (AP/San Jose Mercury News, 1/22). Larry Levitt, vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said employers might reduce benefits to keep the value of the health insurance policies within the allowable deduction (Long Island Newsday, 1/23). Levitt also said health care "is rising on the public agenda," adding, "Our polls consistently show health care affordability as the top personal worry of the public. Political leaders are tapping into that worry" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 1/23). Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, said Bush's proposal "is a way for the president to jump into the discussion of coverage expansion, which he was completely out of." Ginsburg added, "The entire proposal in its current form won't fly" (CQ HealthBeat, 1/22). Ginsburg said the current system gives employers an incentive to offer "Cadillac coverage" because they can write off all of their employee health care spending, which "contributes to rapidly rising health care costs." However, Ginsburg said that older or sicker people could have trouble obtaining non-group coverage under the Bush proposal (McClatchy/Miami Herald, 1/23).

Second Proposal

In related news, HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt on Monday released additional details on a Bush administration proposal that would give states greater flexibility to use federal money to expand health insurance to their residents, the Los Angeles Times reports. The proposal is a second component of the administration's health care plan that Bush is expected to outline in the State of the Union address. It would redirect to states as much as $40 billion in federal funds annually that currently go to hospitals and other providers for care of uninsured and low-income patients (Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times, 1/23). The New York Times reports that the proposal would cut Medicaid payments to public (continued...)

( continues...)

hospitals and other safety net providers by $3.9 billion over the next five years (Rutenberg/Pear, New York Times, 1/23). The proposal is designed to give states incentives to develop plans to expand health insurance coverage (Los Angeles Times, 1/23). The state plans would be required to define which residents need coverage, outline a basic health insurance policy and establish a subsidy that would help uninsured residents obtain coverage, Leavitt said (Carey, CQ HealthBeat, 1/22). Leavitt said Bush "wants to partner with states," adding that he expects at least 12 states to propose health insurance reforms this year (Los Angeles Times, 1/23). Leavitt added, "We want to be able to redirect federal payments away from institutions and to needy individuals. Rather than perpetually paying bills for the uninsured, it's better to help them buy health insurance." Debbie Bachrach, a deputy commissioner in the New York State Health Department, said the funding cuts would affect hospitals that "serve some of the lowest-income, most vulnerable patients" (New York Times, 1/23).

ACK! I edited, right away. I swear.

I started to write it out "ita, megan, sumi," and then realized I was quoting back you, and wanted to have it in the right order, because I'm like that, and well.

I was thinking of it more as a superhero name, though.

What's the correct emoticon for eye's bugging out of your head?

I like o.O

ARGH! The board ate most of my post! What happened?

It separated it into three posts...

The message: too many businesses of all sizes aren't committed to providing insurance coverage regardless of cost. A tax increase would increase the number of uninsured people more than it would offset that number. Also, the hospitals dependent on the federal uncompensated care dollars that Bush is going to propose giving to states will simply reduce their charity care, meaning that uninsured people will have fewer places to turn for health care service.

Finally, federal poverty level for individuals in 2006 was $9600 and for a family of four was $20K. Either way, the $360/mo. number Cindy mentioned for up to 3x FPL sounds terrifying.

It separated it into three posts...

No, I mean my overlong follow-up. When I clicked Post, it came up truncated.

No, I mean my overlong follow-up. When I clicked Post, it came up truncated.

Oh, that's just weird, then.

Increase taxes AND increase the cost of health care and insurance. Another win-win for the Bush White House!

Seriously, can't imagine what they are thinking. They know this won't pass a Democratic Congress. I'd think they have something EEEEvil up their collective sleeves but actually it seems like they're consistently winning the war against minimal political competence.