Fact Sheets & Briefs

The Economic State Of The Union 2012

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:53:08 -0500

These charts from the Economic Policy Institute, first published in December 2011, present some important snapshots of the economic conditions facing working-class and middle-class people. When weighing the priorities set by President Obama in his State of the Union address and the Republican response, these are the realities those priorities must be measured against.

Unemployment

Job-seekers ratio

There are currently more than four unemployed persons for every job opening. While this ratio of job seekers to openings has improved since the depth of the recession, there is still a long way to go to reach a healthy job market.

From Job-seekers ratio remains above 4-to-1 for 34th straight month

Slack in the labor market

The labor market remains weak. In addition to unemployed workers, millions of people who want to work full time can only find part-time work or are so discouraged that they have stopped looking.

From The State of Working America

Impact on children

The recession has hit kids especially hard. In 2010, 10.6 percent of children had at least one parent unemployed, and 18.4 percent of children had at least one unemployed or underemployed parent.

From Sept. 8 Economic Snapshot

Too few openings

The number of unemployed workers far exceeds job openings across industries. This suggests that the unemployment problem is a result of the recession, and is not due to a mismatch between work skills and employer needs.

From The State of Working America

Labor force erosion

The jobs crisis is hitting everyone, regardless of their formal education. Those with higher levels of education are leaving (or never entering) the workforce at the same rate as those with just a high school degree. Those with less than a high school diploma have not seen the same declines since 2009.

From Dec. 8 Economic Snapshot

Wealth

Uneven distribution

Over the last quarter-century, the vast majority (81.7 percent) of increases to wealth have gone to the wealthiest 5 percent, while those in the middle saw declines in their wealth.

From Sept. 15 Economic Snapshot

Income

Uneven pie

Incomes have become increasingly unequal over time, with the top 10 percent (and the top 1 percent) taking an outsized slice of the pie.

From The State of Working America

CEOs vs. workers

Not everyone is feeling the pain of the recession. CEOs continue to fare better, making 243 times as much as the average worker in 2010.

From Nov. 9 Economic Snapshot

Lack of mobility

African Americans are more likely to experience downward mobility. For example, 45 percent of African Americans whose parents were middle-income are in the bottom fifth, while only 16 percent of whites are at the bottom.

From The State of Working America

Budget

Deficits

Current deficits are mostly due to the automatic effects of the recession (for example, from lower tax revenue) and the emergency efforts to create jobs. Bush-era tax changes and unfunded spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have also contributed. Without these factors, the deficit would be approximately balanced.

From May 18 Economic Snapshot

Public investment

Investments as percentage of GDP

Private companies have increased their investments in equipment and software since the end of the recession. In fact, the pace of investments have exceeded the last three recoveries, suggesting that regulatory costs or uncertainty is not a pressing problem.

From Regulatory uncertainty: A phony explanation for our jobs problem

Quotes From Behind The Conservative Wrecking Ball

Eric Hunt — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:16:13 -0400

Rep. Michele Bachmann

"I have no intention of voting to raise the debt ceiling because, right now, the federal government continues to spend more money than what it takes in."
"It isn't true that the government would default on its debt. ... It is scare tactics." Instead, she said the U.S. could avoid a default by paying only the interest on U.S. obligations while lawmakers work on a deal to cut spending dramatically as part of a new debt ceiling. Such an approach has been derided as unworkable by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
"We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world; we need to drop that significantly, so that we have a pro-business, pro-job creation environment. So if we cut back the corporate tax rate, if we would zero out the capital gains rates, allow for 100 percent expensing when a job creator buys equipment for their business, that would go a long way toward job creators recognizing that this is a pro-business environment."

(From the June 26 CBS Face the Nation Interview)

On fixing the deficit : "I think if we give Glenn Beck the numbers, he can solve this." (Alternet.org)
“Social Security, like I told you, is out of money. This year it is borrowing from the general treasury.” (Politifact.com. For the truth on Social Security's finances, see this fact sheet.)
"So if we cut back the corporate tax rate, if we would zero out the capital gains, right, allow for a 100 percent expensing when a job creator buys equipment for their business, that would go a long way towards job creators recognizing that this is a pro-business environment. But right now, businesses are looking at the uncertainty. They know that 'Obamacare' is coming down the pike. The Congressional Budget Office estimated 'Obamacare' will cost the economy 800,000 jobs." (Health Justice Network)

Tim Pawlenty

"There's a group of folks who say look, pay the outside creditors first. So there is no default. Take away that concern. Take away that fear. And then have the debate be about the rest of the domestic spending. That is something that I have advocated for many months" (CBS News)
"I don't think the argument can be credibly made that the United States of America is undertaxed compared to our competitors." (Politifact.com. For our perspective on corporate taxes, see this fact sheet.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell

[On raising taxes] “That’s not serious[ and it is my hope that the president will take those off the table today so that we can have a serious discussion about our country’s economic future.” (Washington Post)
“Not only is there bipartisan opposition, the consequences of massive new tax hikes would be fewer jobs.” (Washington Post)
“Throwing more tax revenue into the mix is simply not going to produce the desired result. It won't pass.” (Christian Post)
“Well, I think we've gotten to the point where we ought to put aside our talking points and get down to what can actually pass. As I was just trying to point out to you, the whole business of raising taxes, regardless of how you go about it, is something that this Congress is not likely to do. The last Congress wasn't willing to do it. So we need to talk about what can pass.” (ABC's This Week)
“We have a spending problem. We don't have a problem because we tax too little.” (Slate.com)

Rep. Eric Cantor

“We have hit the point at which we are really talking about big numbers, and everything, as I’ve said before, is on the table, except tax increases. That includes Medicare, Medicaid and the other mandatory as well as discretionary spending.” (The Washington Post)

Jon Kyl

“If you want to kill the economy, raise taxes. Are we going to vote to absolutely put another anchor around the neck of the economy which is struggling to try to recover here? Absolutely not. It's terrible policy.” (The Hill)

Newt Gingrich

"The left understands how to destroy the American economy. They're working at it diligently." (Reuters)
“Democrats are faced with a real crisis. The president is about to preside over the United States defaulting on its debt — he can’t do that. So he is going to have to in the end agree to something. The Republicans are in a position to say they are very happy to avoid a default if he will sign a spending-cut bill.” (newsmax.com)

Gov. Rick Perry

"I think in America from time to time we have to go through some difficult times — and I think we’re going through those difficult economic times for a purpose, to bring us back to those Biblical principles of you know, you don’t spend all the money. You work hard for those six years and you put up that seventh year in the warehouse to take you through the hard times. And not spending all of our money. Not asking for Pharaoh to give everything to everybody and to take care of folks because at the end of the day, it’s slavery. We become slaves to government." (ThinkProgress.org)

Herman Cain

"I don’t think the current minimum wage is necessary because most companies are paying higher than the minimum wage." (ThinkProgress.org)
"We must empower our economy with lower taxes on businesses and workers. All we have to do is look at the success of the 1960s and 1980s." (The Daily Caller. Tax rates today are actually lower than they were in the 1980s and especially the 1960s. But U.S. economic growth was slower in the 2000s than it was in either decade. For more on the consequences of conservative economic policy, read this.)

Mitt Romney

"We are only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy." (Politifact.com)

Ron Paul

“We must completely revamp the U.S. tax system and move to a territorial model that does not tax foreign source income... We need to abolish the income tax altogether.” (Ron Paul campaign site)

How Health Care Reform Repeal Would Affect You

OurFuture.org Staff — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 15:54:07 -0500

Right now, Republicans in Congress are hard at work trying to repeal or severely weaken health care reform. Below are some of the protections and assistance already available to you as a result of health care reform that you would lose if the Republicans get their way:

Your children can no longer be denied care for preexisting conditions.
Your insurance company is no longer be able to cancel your plan because you get sick or put a lifetime benefit limit on your coverage. Annual benefit limits on coverage are now tightly regulated as well.
Small businesses with 25 or fewer employees can deduct up to 35% of their health care premium costs from their taxes, making the cost of coverage cheaper.
All insurance plans now have to report how much of your premiums they spend on care and provide you rebates if they spend too much on profits. This increased transparency will protect you and make your insurance work better for you.
Your insurance company now has to offer you "first-dollar" coverage of preventative care, which means they have to pay for it even if you haven't paid your full deductible.
All Medicare Part D enrollees who enter the "doughnut hole" will get a $250 rebate check in 2010 towards filling that coverage gap. They will also get a 50% discount on all brand-name and biologic drugs in 2011, with the amount increasing every year to completely phase out the doughnut hole by 2020.
Medicare enrollees now get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention services, and cost-sharing for preventative care has been eliminated.
Overpayments to insurance companies to support their profits through the Medicare Advantage program have been frozen and will be phased down in subsequent years, which means your payments will go farther towards your care and not towards insurance company profits.
Young adults are now able to stay on or go back to their parent's insurance plan until they are 26 years old if they don't have access to their own insurance through an employer.
If in the past you've been denied insurance due to a preexisting condition, you can now get coverage through a temporary reduced-rate high-risk pool, which won't be able to deny you coverage due to preexisting conditions.
You can still get Medicaid or children's health insurance (SCHIP) if you qualify. State Medicaid programs will be required to continue existing coverage.
Money is being provided to expand current community health centers and create new ones, giving you access to new places for free or low-cost care.

These are just the reforms that are already in effect. Over the next couple of years even more reforms will go into effect, providing additional protections to consumers and making health care more affordable--but not if Republicans get their way. Learn more about these reforms at healthcareforamericanow.org.

Why Finish Reform Right?

OurFuture.org Staff — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:42:27 -0500

Why Affordable Health Care Is Important

Health Care Must Be Affordable to All

Both the House and the Senate bills have affordability problems for people who don't get coverage through work.

Low- and moderate-income families can’t afford the Senate bill: For example, a family of 3 that earns $41,000 a year will pay an average of $7,000 a year for health care, or 17% of their income, under the Senate bill, an average obligation that is $2,134 more than under the House bill. And that family could pay a maximum of $9,000 a year on health care, $2,175 more than under the House bill.

Middle-income families can’t afford the House bill: For example, a family of 3 that earns $70,500 a year will pay an average of $12,166 a year, or 17% of their income, under the House bill, an average obligation that is $1,339 more than under the Senate bill. They could pay a maximum of $18,250 a year, $3,419 more than under the Senate bill.

Low and middle income families must be able to afford health insurance if they do not get it through work, and employers must be asked to provide good health coverage for their employees so health care is affordable at work.

The final bill should ask employers to pitch in and share responsibility for full and part-time workers, and should make health care affordable for all incomes. And the final bill should eliminate the tax on health benefits, which President Obama campaigned against. Instead, the wealthiest in society who can afford to help should pitch in their fair share to pay for reform.

Health Care Must Be Affordable at Work

There are big problems with the Senate bill for workers:

There is no requirement that employers provide coverage.
There are no minimum benefit standards for employers that do provide coverage, meaning coverage could be expensive and have few benefits but still count as coverage.
Because employers pay a fine for full-time workers receiving subsidies, but not for part-time workers, it encourages reducing hours and reclassifying full-time workers as part-time.
Employers can avoid fines by offering barebones, high-deductible plans and charging their workers up to 10% of their wages for this lousy coverage.

The House uses a different approach, requiring all but the smallest employers to either provide good insurance to their employees or pay 8% of payroll. Why is the House approach better?

All but the smallest businesses contribute for all of their workers, including part-time employees.
11 million more Americans will get coverage at work compared to the Senate bill.
There is a standard for good benefits.

The House approach is the most equitable way to achieve true shared responsibility.

Health Care Must Be Fairly Financed

The Senate bill pays for reform by taxing middle class health benefits.

The Senate benefits tax is not a “Cadillac” tax. It would adversely impact tens of millions of middle-class families and one-third of all insurance plans, resulting in benefit cuts, increased premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and lower wages.

There is another way. In the House, they pay for reform with a surtax on the richest families in the country. In this way, those that can most afford it in society pay their fair share for reform

Why holding insurance companies accountable is important

The Senate bill falls far short of holding insurance companies accountable, reigning in their costs, and preventing them from denying care.

With no choice of a public option, premiums will be higher and insurers won’t have to compete with a plan that puts our health ahead of profits.
The Senate bill allows annual benefit caps — increasing the risk of medical bankruptcy.
The Senate bill puts states in charge of setting up and running the new Exchanges. This will be costly for the states and result in weak consumer protections in states in which there is political opposition from governors to reform.

Insurance companies must be held accountable with strong regulations and consumer protections, and we must be given the choice of a national public health insurance option available on day one. The House bill gives us that choice.

Without accountability, the Senate bill will not protect us from the insurance company abuses that have plagued this country.

The final bill needs tough regulations and real choices, to give the American people what they want and need.

The Case Against A Health Insurance Excise Tax

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:24:40 -0500

Lawmakers in Washington are close to a consensus view that the Senate's excise tax on higher-cost health plans is a good idea. Here's the problem: The consensus is wrong. The misnamed "Cadillac tax" is unfair and unwise.

While it's been couched in other terms – "bending the cost curve," etc. – this is a tax on middle-class Americans, pure and simple. The cost reduction effects are highly theoretical, but the pocketbook effect is immediate and real.

Here are some key arguments against this tax:

It's based on flawed logic: Adherents would have you believe that the excise tax will change the way people use medical services – for the better. But the Association of Federal Health Organizations in November found that such an excise tax would raise costs for basic coverage and limit choices for millions of consumers; its impact goes far beyond “luxury” services or “unnecessary” care.
It's a tax on middle-class Americans: They call it a "Cadillac tax" because it was originally pitched as a way to make wealthy executives pay for their luxury plans. But this tax will hit middle-class families the hardest, adding thousands of dollars a year to family insurance premiums. And, because health plan costs are rising much faster than the tax's inflation index, it will hurt an increasing number of middle-class families every year.
It's anti-union: Many American unions traded real wages and other forms of income in order to ensure that their members got decent health coverage. Taxing those benefits will provide employers with an excuse to break their promises and cut these benefits, while giving nothing back in return.
It's bad politics: This tax is likely to hurt politicians who support it, and hurt Democrats’ chances in 2010. This is true nationwide, and especially in some states and regions where it can least afford to alienate core constituencies.
It could promote bias in hiring: Health plans become costly for a variety of reasons. Benefit design, the target of the tax, is only one reason. This tax does little to distinguish cost drivers – like geographical variations in health costs, an aging workforce and other demographic factors – and could make employers reluctant to hire certain workers.
Campaign promises are being broken: A number of candidates in last year's elections, including the President, promised voters that health reform would not result in new taxes for the middle class. They also promised voters that "if you like the plan you have now, you can keep it." This tax not only breaks the first promise, but also the second. Employers will cut current health plans in order to avoid this tax.
It will effect one in every five employer plans: The excise tax could hit up to 19 percent of medical packages offered by employers in 2013, the first year it goes into effect. Even federal workers are not spared. Report findings indicate that single enrollees would be hit by a tax surcharge (or benefit cut) in the first year of the tax, and that their average cost over ten years would be $1,600 per year. Family plans were projected to face a $5,500 annual tax per year by 2022.

Federal Workers’ Most Popular Health Plan Will Be Hit Hard by Senate Excise Tax

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:03:32 -0500

Download the full report (PDF) »

The U.S. Senate health care bill would impose a 40 percent excise tax on employer-provided health care plans exceeding a certain price. The Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan’s Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard plan is one of many FEHBP plans that will be significantly affected by the tax. To avoid the tax, BC/BS will have to cut benefits or else sharply increase the costs paid by federal employees.

About 48 percent of federal workers are enrolled in the BC/BS Standard plan. This represents 1.3 million enrollees and 2.8 million covered lives.

The excise tax would be assessed on the value of health care plans that exceeds $23,000 for a family and $8,500 for an individual starting in 2013. These “thresholds” would increase annually at the rate of general inflation plus one percentage point — roughly 3 percent a year. This is far below the 8.6 percent to 9 percent rate of increase that the BC/BS Standard plans averaged over the last 11 years.

If the cost of this plan continues to rise 9 percent a year, federal employees will get clobbered by the excise tax. At that inflation rate, the cost of the excise tax over 10 years for each worker in the BC/BS Standard plan, including average dental and vision coverage, will be

$20,400 per worker in the family plan, or $2,040 a year.
$16,400 per worker in the single plan, or $1,640 a year.

The BC/BS Standard plan is touted as the type of plan that will not be taxed under the Senate bill. That’s because it is not considered a “Cadillac” plan — the supposed target of this tax. It is more like a Chevy — it provides basic coverage, but participants bear significant costs. For example, federal employees pay about 30 percent of the premium and there is a relatively high out-of-pocket maximum of $7,000 in the family plan.

The excise tax is projected to raise about $150 billion over 10 years. There are far better ways to pay for health care reform than to tax the middle class. Health reform legislation approved by the House of Representatives (H.R. 3962) would require most employers to provide coverage raising $135 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And the wealthy are asked to pay their fair share too, with a surcharge on the top 0.3 percent of taxpayers that raises $460 billion.

Trigger Troubles—And Why the Senate Can’t Fix Them

Jacob S. Hacker — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:03:25 -0400

Jacob S. Hacker, Ph.D.
Stanley B. Resor Professor of Political Science, Yale University

A persistent bad idea in the debate over the public health insurance option is the so-called trigger. In theory, a trigger would make a public health insurance plan available to Americans receiving coverage through a health insurance exchange if private health plans did not sufficiently hold down costs. In practice, however, a trigger inserted into either of the two Senate bills now being merged (the Senate Finance Committee bill and the Senate HELP bill) would not be able to work.

The motive of the trigger is political—to find a compromise in the Senate that will attract the support of the small number of conservative Democrats who have expressed reservations about the public health insurance option, as well as Republican Olympia Snowe, who has proposed a trigger. This is obviously a crucial goal. But to be a compromise between such skeptics and the majority of Senators who support a public plan, a trigger must have some prospect of working.

A workable trigger would, at a minimum, need to achieve three goals: (1) establish a reasonable and measurable standard for private plan performance that sets out clear affordability and cost-containment goals for a specifically defined package of benefits, (2) assess this standard in a timely fashion with information available to policymakers after reform legislation passes, and (3) if this standard were met, quickly create a public health insurance plan that would effectively remedy the situation.

The modifier “quickly” in the third goal is crucial: Runaway health costs are a grave and growing threat to federal and state budgets and to the health security of workers, their families, and their employers. Waiting longer than absolutely necessary for affordable coverage is certain to cause great harm. Indeed, it might actually compound the current crisis. Without an imminent threat of public plan competition, private insurers are likely to raise premiums in anticipation of the implementation of reform—as suggested by AHIP’s recent prediction of big premium increases if reform passes. Delaying a public plan may also jeopardize the cause of reform itself, because requiring Americans to buy unaffordable coverage has the potential to provoke a political backlash. (Polls show that Americans are more supportive of a mandate when they know they will have the choice of a public plan.)

In short, we cannot wait for a public plan—and one of the biggest problems with a trigger is that it virtually guarantees we will have to.

The problems, however, do not end there. Consider just a few of the other serious difficulties:

None of the trigger proposals that have been floated contains criteria for triggering the creation of a public plan that concern both affordability of coverage and the growth of premiums over time. It is simply not enough for coverage to be defined as “affordable” for a given share of the population. To judge private insurance successful in restraining costs, premium inflation would also need to be restrained—but the triggers on the table do nothing on this score.
The proposals on the table also assess affordability based on the price people pay after receiving assistance from the federal government. This means that efforts to help people afford coverage, perversely, reduce the chance of a public plan that will rein in costs for individuals and taxpayers.
The triggers under discussion assess whether affordability standards are met at an aggregate level, such as within states. Yet local markets vary greatly even within states. If some markets have very high premiums or runaway costs, a trigger might not be pulled if other markets in the state have lower premiums or experience more modest growth. Residents of a high-cost, low-competition area would, in effect, be held hostage by an overly aggregated measure.
The triggers being discussed all focus on the premiums people pay, rather than their total out-of-pocket costs. As problematic, they are vague with regard to what is affordable—that is, what package of benefits is required. Within the exchange, the Senate bills create new rules for coverage that are relatively strict, though still leave too much room for tailoring benefits to shift costs to high-risk patients. But outside the exchange, in the employment-based market from which most Americans will continue to receive coverage, the bills are much more lax. The Finance Committee bill, for example, sets a standard for minimum coverage that is substantially less generous than the typical employment-based plan today. There is every reason to think plans will simply cover less or shift more costs onto patients to meet the affordability standard, since, again, the standard concerns only the individual premium, not total costs.
None of the trigger ideas under discussion envision the creation of a national plan built on Medicare’s infrastructure, the only public plan option that has been shown by the Congressional Budget Office to produce substantial savings.

All this is not surprising in light of the history of trigger proposals in health care and other policy areas: As is well recognized, triggers are generally designed to create political cover, not effective policy.

Less well understood is that some of the key difficulties with triggers are intrinsic to central characteristics of the Senate health bills. In particular, the Senate bills, unlike their House counterparts, leave an enormous amount of responsibility for the regulation of private insurance to the states—which for the most part have not had the wherewithal or will to take on large private insurers. The Senate bills also have much weaker regulations of private insurance plans outside of the exchange—the plans on which most Americans will rely after reform. At the same time, the Senate bills lack strong requirements on private insurers to provide data that could be used to assess whether a trigger should be pulled. At the same time, the Senate bills lack strong requirements on private insurers to provide data that could be used to assess whether a trigger should be pulled. Ironically, these characteristics make a public plan without a trigger especially vital in the Senate, where, of course, the public plan has also been more controversial.

Added to the Senate bills, a trigger would represent a backdoor way of killing the public health insurance option that a majority of Americans (and U.S. Senators) support. It is well past time to trigger real competition for private plans that have failed to ensure affordability or cost restraint for decades.

Sources Promoting Conservative Health Policy

OurFuture.org Staff — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:59:58 -0400

Reports Promoting Free-Market Health Care:

• Conrad F. Meier. Extending Affordable Health Insurance to the Uninsured. The Heartland Institute. Heartland policy Study Number 91. 27 August 1999.

• Connie Marshner. “The Health Insurance Exchange: Enabling Freedom of Conscience in Health Care.” Heritage Foundation. WebMemo #1377. 1 March 2007.

• Grace-Marie Turner. “Toward Free-Market Health Care.” Heritage Foundation. Heritage Lecture #1019. 4 May 2007.

Websites Promoting Free-Market Health Care:

• The Future of Freedom Foundation

• Free Market Cure

• Free Market Healthcare

• Freedom Works

• The Heartland Institute

• Americans for Tax Reform

"Will We Let Conservatives Do To Health Care...": The Facts

Alex Carter — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:22:21 -0400

116 million Americans are now uninsured, or underinsured, or financially vulnerable to unexpected medical costs—now the No. 1 cause of family bankruptcies.

• The Commonwealth Fund in 2007 found that nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults, or an estimated 116 million people, struggled to pay medical bills, went without needed care because of cost, were uninsured for a time, or were underinsured (i.e., were insured but not adequately protected from high medical expenses).

• Forty-one percent of working-age adults, or 72 million people, reported a problem paying their medical bills or had accrued medical debt, up from 34 percent, or 58 million, in 2005. An additional 7 million adults 65 and older also reported bill or debt problems.

Sara R. Collins, Ph.D., Jennifer L. Kriss, Michelle M. Doty, Ph.D., and Sheila D. Rustgi. Losing Ground: How the Loss of Adequate Health Insurance Is Burdening Working Families. The Commonwealth Fund. Volume 99. 20 August 2008.

•In a 2005 survey of 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in five federal courts, which included in-depth interviews with 931 of them, about half cited medical causes. That indicates that as many as 2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) have experienced medical bankruptcy in recent years.

•Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness. Medical debtors were 42 percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.

David U. Himmelstein, et.al. “MarketWatch: Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy.” Health Affairs. 2 February 2005.

Those who have insurance are paying higher costs for policies that often have gaping holes in coverage. And insurance companies flat-out refuse to sell coverage to those already sick.

• Adults with individual market policies, rather than those with employer-based plans, are the most likely to have gaping holes in coverage. For example, about 22 percent of adults with individual insurance lack prescription drug coverage, while only 4 percent with employer coverage do. More than 70 percent of adults with coverage through the individual market go without dental insurance, about four times the rate of adults with employer coverage.

• People with individual policies are also more likely to have high out-of-pocket premium costs compared with people covered through employers, who generally share the costs with workers. More than half of adults with individual market coverage have premium costs of $3,000 a year or more, versus 18 percent of those with insurance through a job. Nearly one-third (32 percent) of those with individual market coverage spend $6,000 or more, compared with 5 percent of those with employer coverage.

• Adults with individual market coverage are also more likely to face high deductibles, on average, than are adults with coverage through a job. Thirty-seven percent of people with individual market coverage have deductibles of $1,000 or more, compared with 8 percent of those with employer-based insurance.

Sara R. Collins, et.al. Squeezed: Why Rising Exposure to Health Care Costs Threatens the Health and Financial Well-Being of American Families. The Commonwealth Fund. September 2006.

In today’s financial crisis and economic slowdown, millions more will lose jobs and health coverage, increasing the demand for change.

•The nation's employers continue to cut payrolls, with jobs down by 159,000 in September, the ninth consecutive month of job losses, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So far this year, payrolls are down 760,000 overall and 969,000 in the private sector (the latter loss began in December).

• Unemployment, at 6.1 percent, is up 1.4 points over the past year, and over the past year, the unemployment rolls have expanded by 2.2 million, to 9.5 million, the highest number of unemployed since December of 1992.

Jared Bernstein and Heidi Shierholz. Jobs Picture: Jobs Decline for Ninth Month in A Row as Labor Market Recession Deepens. Economic Policy Institute. 3 October 2008.

But the cure conservatives are selling is worse than the disease: They propose to tax, as income, the health benefits that 160 million people get on the job. This is purposefully designed to destroy the incentive for companies to provide health insurance to their workers. The EPI Policy Center and other experts predict that 20 million Americans would lose good employer-sponsored group health insurance.

• Recently a team of prominent health economists estimated that 20 million people nationwide would lose employer-sponsored insurance if the health care plan proposed by Senator John McCain were to become law. Because the centerpiece of the McCain plan would impose taxes on health insurance benefits—which are now untaxed—employers would be less likely to offer them.

L. Josh Bivens and Elise Gould. McCain Plan Accelerates Loss in Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance: A State-by-State Analysis. Economic Policy Institute Policy Center. Research Bulletin #100. 1 October 2008.

Instead they’d be left on their own—perhaps with a partial tax credit--trying to buy inferior and expensive coverage directly from deregulated insurance companies.

• The conservative Heritage Foundation advocates for a "Tax Equity: A refundable health care tax credit for individuals would level the playing field between what an employer may offer and what an individual can buy for himself. President Bush recently proposed a measure to accomplish this. In the absence of this tax reform, employers could designate the health insurance exchange itself as their "plan" for the purpose of federal and state taxes. An employer's defined contribution on behalf of an employee would then be tax free, just as it would be for conventional employer-based health insurance, and the employee would have the freedom to select a plan of his choice."

Connie Marshner.“The Health Insurance Exchange: Enabling Freedom of Conscience in Health Care.” Heritage Foundation. WebMemo #1377. 1 March 2007.

Anyone already sick will have one hell of a time finding insurance at any price.

•Thirty states operate high-risk pools intended to offer coverage to persons denied coverage in the individual health insurance market. But in most states the high-risk pool mirrors the individual market’s problems: Coverage is expensive, the waiting period for coverage of preexisting conditions is long, and benefits may be limited.

•A few states with high-risk pools have addressed these problems by adequately funding high enrollment and comprehensive benefits; some also require the market to accept more risk. But most discourage enrollment in the high-risk pool in myriad ways and fail to ensure access to the individual market for persons with health problems.

Deborah Chollet. “Expanding Individual Health Insurance Coverage: Are High-Risk Pools the Answer?” Health Affairs. 23 October 2002.

Of course conservatives say this is all for the good--forcing us into “the free market” to shop personally for the cheapest policy. But for most of us it just means life gets harder.

•In 2007, the conservative Heritage Foundation advocated this “free-market" approach in its lecture, “Toward Free-Market Health Care,” ….This move toward more individual control over health care decisions and health care spending is part of the global movement toward health care consumerism. Giving people more power and control over their health care and health insurance creates new incentives for people to be more engaged in managing their health. Incentives work, and competition works. What we need to do is engage the power of consumers to transform our health sector to become more efficient, more responsive to consumer needs, and more affordable….

Grace-Marie Turner. “Toward Free-Market Health Care.” Heritage Foundation. Heritage Lecture #1019. 4 May 2007.

•In 2007, former Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani also advocated for a “free-market” approach to healthcare during a GOP debate, Health insurance should become like homeowners insurance or like car insurance. You don't cover everything on your homeowners’ policy. If you have a slight accident in your house, if you need to refill your oil with your car, you don't cover that with insurance. But that is covered in many of the insurance policies, because they're government-dominated and they're employer-dominated. And the reality is that we need a free market…. Free-market principles are the only things that reduce [healthcare] costs and improve quality.

Rudolph W. Giuliani. “2007 GOP Presidential Candidate Third Debate.” 5 June 2007.

•In the same GOP debate, Mitt Romney supported the “free market” healthcare ideology. Romney stated, As governor, I talked to people, and they say, "If I lose my job, I'm worried I'll lose my insurance, and my insurance premiums are getting higher and higher." And we said: We got to find a way to get everybody insured. And the last thing we want is to have the government take over health care, because anything they take over gets worse. We said: We need to find a way to get everybody in our state insured with private insurance. [We found] a way to get them insured without raising taxes, without a government takeover. It relies on personal responsibility.…We get all of our citizens insured. We have to stand up and say the market works. Personal responsibility works.

Mitt Romney. “2007 GOP Presidential Candidate Third Debate.” 5 June 2007.

That’s why people across the country are joining with Health Care for America Now to demand an alternative: quality, affordable health care for all.

•Health Care for America Now is a national grassroots campaign organizing millions of Americans to win a guarantee of quality, affordable health care for all. HCAN is grounded in organizations that can mobilize people at work, at home, in their neighborhoods, and online; bringing together community organizers, nurses, doctors, small business owners, faith-based groups, organizations of people of color, and seniors who believe it's time they have an American solution that provides quality, affordable health care for everyone.

Health Care for America Now

This debate can’t be left to insurance lobbyists and politicians.

• The U.S. health system is the most expensive in the world, but comparative analyses consistently show the United States underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the six nations studied by the Commonwealth Fund—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2006 and 2004.

• Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries and is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity. The most notable way the U.S. differs from other countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage.

Karen Davis, Ph.D., et. al. Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care. The Commonwealth Fund. Volume 59. 15 May 2007.

• Almost $113 million was spent lobbying Congress on prescription drug issues in just the first half of 2008. Nearly all of that was spent by the leading drug makers. Another $32 million was spent on issues related to health services and HMOs, and almost all the big spenders were insurance companies. The two sectors combined are responsible for $14 million in campaign contributions so far this year.

Open Secrets.org. Lobbying: Health Services/HMOs, Lobbying: Pharmaceuticals/Health Products.

Health Insurance Coverage of Women Ages 18 to 64, by State, 2005- 2006

Melinda Gibson — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0500

http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/1613_07.pdf

Fact Sheets & Briefs

The Economic State Of The Union 2012

Unemployment

Job-seekers ratio

Slack in the labor market

Impact on children

Too few openings

Labor force erosion

Wealth

Uneven distribution

Income

Uneven pie

CEOs vs. workers

Lack of mobility

Budget

Deficits

Public investment

Investments as percentage of GDP

Quotes From Behind The Conservative Wrecking Ball

Rep. Michele Bachmann

Tim Pawlenty

Sen. Mitch McConnell

Rep. Eric Cantor

Jon Kyl

Newt Gingrich

Gov. Rick Perry

Herman Cain

Mitt Romney

Ron Paul

How Health Care Reform Repeal Would Affect You

Why Finish Reform Right?

Why Affordable Health Care Is Important

Health Care Must Be Affordable to All

Health Care Must Be Affordable at Work

Health Care Must Be Fairly Financed

Why holding insurance companies accountable is important

The Case Against A Health Insurance Excise Tax

Federal Workers’ Most Popular Health Plan Will Be Hit Hard by Senate Excise Tax

Trigger Troubles—And Why the Senate Can’t Fix Them

Further Reading

Sources Promoting Conservative Health Policy

Reports Promoting Free-Market Health Care:

Websites Promoting Free-Market Health Care:

"Will We Let Conservatives Do To Health Care...": The Facts

116 million Americans are now uninsured, or underinsured, or financially vulnerable to unexpected medical costs—now the No. 1 cause of family bankruptcies.

Those who have insurance are paying higher costs for policies that often have gaping holes in coverage. And insurance companies flat-out refuse to sell coverage to those already sick.

In today’s financial crisis and economic slowdown, millions more will lose jobs and health coverage, increasing the demand for change.

Instead they’d be left on their own—perhaps with a partial tax credit--trying to buy inferior and expensive coverage directly from deregulated insurance companies.

Anyone already sick will have one hell of a time finding insurance at any price.

Of course conservatives say this is all for the good--forcing us into “the free market” to shop personally for the cheapest policy. But for most of us it just means life gets harder.

That’s why people across the country are joining with Health Care for America Now to demand an alternative: quality, affordable health care for all.

This debate can’t be left to insurance lobbyists and politicians.

Health Insurance Coverage of Women Ages 18 to 64, by State, 2005- 2006