July 6, 2010 1:31 PM

First Set of New Health Care Changes to Kick In

(AP)  The first stage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is expected to provide coverage to about 1 million uninsured Americans by next year, according to government estimates.

That's a small share of the uninsured, but in a shaky economy, experts say it's notable.

Many others--more than 100 million people--are getting new benefits that improve their existing coverage.

Overall costs appear modest at this point, split among taxpayers, employers and individuals who directly benefit, although the biggest part of the health care expansion is still four years away.

For weeks, the White House has been touting the new law's initial benefit changes, even as Obama dares Republicans to make good on their threat to repeal his signature social policy achievement. Now, a clearer picture is starting to emerge from the patchwork of press releases.

In 2014, government tax credits will help uninsured workers and their families pay premiums, and Medicaid will take in many more low-income people. Eventually, more than 30 million will gain coverage, sharply reducing the number of uninsured and putting the nation on a path to coverage for all citizens and legal immigrants.

Political salesmanship and an attempt to address some glaring health insurance problems are key elements of the strategy to explain the initial changes resulting from the law. After battling for a year to pass the legislation, Democrats desperately wanted to have tangible accomplishments to point to in high-stakes congressional elections this fall. But they also have to deflect lingering questions, often stirred up by opposition candidates, and doubts about the effectiveness of the overhaul and its costs.

"We've seen increasing numbers of people losing their health insurance, particularly in this recession," said Sara Collins, vice president of the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based health research clearinghouse. "Providing this early relief will help people who are particularly affected by the downturn." Collins reviewed coverage estimates in federal regulations for The Associated Press.

Among the beneficiaries will be many people locked out of insurance because of medical problems.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care Reform

The Raether family of suburban Milwaukee will gain from two of the changes: Elimination of lifetime coverage limits and a ban on insurers turning away children in poor health.

Four-year-old daughter Mira, who was born prematurely and has kidney problems, exhausted the lifetime limit on her parents' policy earlier this year. Mira now has temporary Medicare coverage because of a kidney transplant, but her parents were worried about what would happen when they have to get her back on private insurance.

"A huge weight has been lifted," said Sheryl Raether, the mother. "She has ongoing health care needs, and I was afraid she'd hit another lifetime limit." Medicare not only covers seniors, but people of any age with permanent kidney failure.

The major early coverage benefits include:

Allowing young adults to stay on their parents' coverage until they turn 26. In 2011, an estimated 650,000 young people who would otherwise have been uninsured will gain coverage. Another 600,000 will benefit by switching from individually purchased policies to less costly, more comprehensive employer plans. The number with coverage will grow in 2012 and 2013.

A health plan for uninsured people with pre-existing health conditions. From 200,000 to 400,000 could benefit in 2011, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The government may limit enrollment if $5 billion allocated through 2013 starts to run out, as projected. Beginning in 2014, insurers will be required to accept all applicants, regardless of medical history.

Ending lifetime limits on coverage, and restricting annual limits. As many as 20,400 people a year hit lifetime limits, as did Mira Raether. Many more--an estimated 102 million - are in plans that impose such limits and will no longer be able to do so.

Requiring insurers to cover children with medical problems. An estimated 51,000 uninsured children are expected to gain coverage. Another 90,000 children who have been excluded for coverage for a particular condition--asthma, for example--will also benefit.

Many Americans covered through employers won't see the changes until Jan. 1, the start of their next health plan year. That means 2011 will be the first year that the early benefits are fully in place.

What that entails for costs is a matter of intense speculation. A recent survey of employers by Mercer, a major benefits consultant, found that 42 percent expect an increase of 2 percent or less, while one-fourth expect an increase of 3 percent or more. Government estimates are generally lower.

Beth Umland, research director for Mercer, said employers were expecting health cost increases averaging about 6 percent a year before the law. "Now they are looking at an additional 2 or 3 points, so that 6 percent can become a 9 percent, and that seems to be above their comfort level," she said.

Dave Osterndorf, chief health actuary for the Towers Watson consulting firm, said large employers will respond by passing on costs to their workers. "These first few changes, in and of themselves, will not dramatically change the way employers look at the provision of health benefits," he said. "Employers will feel part of the impact, and employees will feel part."

Some coverage gains may take a while to add up. For example, Blue Cross Blue Shield Kansas City reports brisk sales to small businesses by advertising Obama's new tax credit for those who offer coverage. CEO Tom Bowser said more than 60 of the 227 small firms signed up so far did not previously offer health benefits.

"Small groups are one of the toughest markets we have," said Bowser. "Because of the economy, more and more were dropping coverage entirely, and we've able to reverse that."

© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 18 Comments
by babooph July 6, 2010 5:05 PM EDT
Most US tax $$$ [from ANY source} funds the military-no nation ever wanted to attack the US & "get the poor & middle class"-commies had it in for the rich & any fool knew the twin towers was not full of school teachers.Those who want the user to pay should have the rich pay for the military then-the rest of us could afford health care...
Reply to this comment
by Mortar_29 July 6, 2010 3:59 PM EDT
Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.

Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?

You say, "that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.

None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
Reply to this comment
by tmn July 6, 2010 5:45 PM EDT
"Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another."
==============
Really? I have no children, but pay taxes to send others kids to school. Isn't that "directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another."?

But, oddly enough, I'm not offended. I understand how taxes and taxing works. Mortar_29 obviously doesn't. His (or her) long-winded diatribe demonstrates a serious case of confusion...
by reman0123 July 7, 2010 5:09 PM EDT
The problem with you people who just repeat Faux News talking points is that you don't think past your own nose. It's called "externalities." When the only type of health care available is emergency care, guess who ends up paying many times more than if we had just provided preventative care in the first place. That's right, the taxpayer.

The reason I am FORCED to pay for car insurance is because it's a good idea to make sure everyone on the road has it. Otherwise we'd all end up paying for the deadbeats who can't be bothered to pay for it.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has healthcare for their citizens. Have you ever once stopped and thought that there might be a reason for it? There's an idea for you...stop...and think.
by JFK2112 July 6, 2010 2:44 PM EDT
Its not cost-effective for me... We should all just quit working, big government will take care of us!
Reply to this comment
by Mortar_29 July 7, 2010 5:15 PM EDT
Yes. That's what the business community is going to do. Shove you out on the government plan, so they can save money.

Why dont we all just quit and demand the government write checks big enough to cover our current salaries?
by rocketjl July 6, 2010 1:14 PM EDT
Thank goodness this health care law will enable more people to get health coverage. They have been going to the ER and the rest of us have been paying their health bills, through higher medical insurance charges. Now that they will be able to buy their own health insurance, we won't have to pay their medical costs, so our health costs shou7ld automatically should go down, right, right, hey say something. That is right isn't it? You don't mean the government (Obama) took total control of the US health system on a lie????
Reply to this comment
by Mortar_29 July 6, 2010 1:32 PM EDT
Well, it will do none of that. ER waits will increase. Costs will increase. The number of people beng forced off of their employers plan and onto the government deal will increase dramatically!

And the big question is: why are we forcing people to work for other people? Why are we forcing people to pay for other people? That is immoral...it is a form of slavery. It is theft.
by tmn July 6, 2010 2:43 PM EDT
"why are we forcing people to work for other people? Why are we forcing people to pay for other people? That is immoral...it is a form of slavery. It is theft."
========================
What a STUPID comment! I have no kids, yet I pay for Public Schools on my property taxes, local taxes, state taxes, federal taxes. I understand why. You consider that THEFT?? How moronic!
See all 4 Replies
by skepticalJM July 6, 2010 12:45 PM EDT
Four years is a long time, by then the cost of Health care will have risen another 10 - 15%, because of the insurance companies. What are the people that are currently uninsured supposed to do in the meantime?
Are they supposed to go out and break the law and get put in jail so they can get Health Care?
But then America is only for the rich, right.
Reply to this comment
by askagain July 6, 2010 4:22 PM EDT
What makes you think that health insurance will become cheaper or larges abbual rate increases will go away? That was not the intent of health care reform. Health care reforn will simply make health insurance more expensive. You can not insure sick people and eliminate lifetime maximum limits without making health insurance more expensive. If you want these things, expect to pay more.
by askagain July 6, 2010 4:23 PM EDT
correction


What makes you think that health insurance will become cheaper or larges annual rate increases will go away? That was not the intent of health care reform. Health care reforn will simply make health insurance more expensive. You can not insure sick people and eliminate lifetime maximum limits without making health insurance more expensive. If you want these things, expect to pay more.
by ksmit2 July 6, 2010 12:39 PM EDT
Health care has been the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room
that no one happened to "notice" for decades. A two percent sales tax
on certain merchandise would be a relatively painless start for paying
some of this freight.It's easy to miss the bigger issue when we fall
into the trap of being afraid that someone is going to get something
for free. Well, folks it's been going on for a long time, and all we
can do is get over it. We still have our cars, beer and the Super
Bowl. That's what life is all about isn't it.
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 July 6, 2010 11:40 AM EDT
The idea of single payer is to cover everyone so that the load is spread.
Reply to this comment
by Mortar_29 July 6, 2010 11:51 AM EDT
Why do we demand someone pay for someone else?
by Mortar_29 July 6, 2010 2:24 PM EDT
Bobby, what you propose is slavery. Slavery is nothing but the forced service for others, where a persons property (fruits of their labor) is confiscated and given to another person who did nothing to earn it.

That is slavery, it is theft...and it is immoral. Charity is NOT the business of government. Our Constitution does not even give the power to the Federal government to spend ONE DIME on acts of charity.

Forced charity is not charity at all. It is stealing from your fellow American.
See all 18 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook